Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

CLOSED PITS.

Mr. MARTIN: 1.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give the number of pits in the county of Durham which have closed down completely (i.e., machinery removed) in the last five years; the numbers temporarily closed (i.e., not working but machinery still installed); and the number in which the workable coal will not give more than another five to 10 years' employment at average rates of production?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): During the last five years, 66 pits in Durham, employing 3,759 men, have been abandoned and 30 pits, employing 5,739 men, have been closed, but not abandoned. More than half of these 96 pits were small pits employing 10 men each or less, and in the aggregate only 207 men. Generally speaking, it is when a mine is abandoned that the machinery is removed. The information asked for in the last part of the question is not available.

Mr. MARTIN: Cannot the hon. Gentleman make a further survey to obtain this kind of information in both the Durham and Northumberland coalfields, discovering the possible employment in the pits in the next few years?

Mr. BROWN: I do not think so.

Mr. MARTIN: Is it not a fact that the Royal Commission 10 years ago went into the question of the life of the pits, and could not the hon. Gentleman follow it up on that line?

Mr. BROWN: That is another issue.

Mr. McKEAG: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate the special parts of Durham in which these collieries that have been closed down are situated?

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Member will put that question down, I will try to give him an answer.

AITKEN COLLIERY, WEST FIFE (CANTEEN).

Mr. MILNE: 2.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the pithead baths at Aitken Colliery, West Fife, are not yet provided with a canteen; that this adversely affects the health and comfort of the men using the baths, and the delay in providing a canteen is due to a disagreement between the Central Miners' Welfare Committee and the district welfare committee as to which of these bodies should provide the money required; and what steps he proposes to take to end this situation and secure that the baths are provided with a canteen?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am aware that the pithead baths at Aitken Colliery have no canteen. Canteens have been provided at only 64 of the 152 baths erected so far under the Mining Industry Act, 1926, the decision as to whether or not a canteen should be added to a bath installation at the cost of the Miners' Welfare Fund having been in the hands of the District Miners' Welfare Committees, which are the bodies entrusted with the duty of advising the Central Committee how the District Funds can most advantageously be utilised. I understand that the Central Committee have undertaken to provide canteens out of the Central Baths Fund at the baths started after 1st January this year where they are satisfied that a canteen is required, but that the basis upon which the Baths Fund operates from that date does not enable them to contemplate providing canteens at baths started before that date. The duty of allocating the Miners' Welfare Fund is vested entirely in the Miners' Welfare Committee, and I am afraid I cannot interfere.

Mr. MILNE: I understand that the Secretary for Mines has no power to coerce but has power to persuade. Would he be willing to use his remarkable powers of persuasion to bring this unfortunate situation to an end?

Mr. BROWN: Representations should be made in the district where those concerned are adequately represented on the Miners' Welfare Committee both on the men's and the owners' side.

CANNOCK CHASE COLLIERIES (AMALGAMATION).

Mrs. WARD: 5.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information regarding the proposed amalgamation of collieries in the Cannock Chase coalfields?

Mr. E. BROWN: I understand that the Commission have completed their valuations and are now preparing a scheme of amalgamation compromising 11 companies with a view to submiting it to the Board of Trade under the provisions of the relevant Acts.

ROSS COLLIERY, HAMILTON.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN (for Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM): 3.
asked the Secretary for Mines the last day on which an inspector of mines visited the Ross Colliery, Hamilton; whether, on the occasion of his visit, he made any inquiry into the ventilation of the colliery; and was he satisfied that it was in good condition?

Mr. E. BROWN: The most recent underground inspection of the workings was on 30th May, and it covered the Pyotshaw seam. The ventilation was found to be satisfactory except for small accumulations of gas in three cavities at roadheads, and steps were taken immediately to remove this gas by hurdle sheets. The fireman was questioned and asserted that these cavities had been free of gas at the time of his inspection.

Mr. MACLEAN (for Mr. D. GRAHAM): 4.
asked the Secretary for Mines the date upon which an explosion occurred at Ross Colliery, Hamilton, by which a miner named Malcolm MacCormack was killed; and whether there was any correspondence or interviews between the management of the colliery and any of His Majesty's inspectors of mines with the object of avoiding a prosecution?

Mr. E. BROWN: The explosion occurred on 4th March last and the inspectors of mines were certainly not parties to correspondence or discussion of any kind, with the object of avoiding a prosecution. On the contrary, the divisional inspector made thorough investi-
gations with a view to prosecuting the management, but the available evidence proved to be insufficient.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

HOSIERY IMPORTS.

Mr. LYONS: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the present large imports of foreign-made hosiery and stockings, he will introduce a Measure for the prohibition of all such imports from countries where-the standards of labour are such as to, constitute unfair competition with British labour?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): No, Sir, there is no reason to think that the home market cannot be adequately protected under the existing procedure.

Mr. LYONS: Has the right hon. Gentleman had brought to his notice the great influx of hosiery from countries which have no proper standard of life, and, if I can satisfy him that there is this influx, which is so well known to the workers, will he ask the Import Duties Advisory Committee to take immediate steps to give some protection to the people engaged in the industry more than the small duties that now prevail?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am quite sure that, if the facts that the hon. Member states are brought to the notice of the Committee, they will give them consideration at once.

Mr. LYONS: Has the right hon. gentleman's attention been brought to the fact that these goods come in here far below the cost of production in this country and that it is obvious that a small duty has no real effect in stopping this influx of sweated goods.

BELGIAN BRICKS (IMPORTS).

Mr. STOURTON: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of bricks imported from Belgium during the past 12 months to the nearest convenient date, and during the previous year?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the 12 months ended 30th September, 1934, the number of bricks of brick earth or clay imported into the United Kingdom and
consigned from Belgium was 283,868,000. During the preceding 12 months the number was 165,892,000.

Mr. STOURTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that brick imports from foreign countries have increased from 57,000,000 in 1922 and 159,000,000 in 1933 to the enormous total of 231,000,000 in the first nine months of this year? This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs since these bricks could have been made at home to provide work for our own people.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: All these facts should be brought before the notice of the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. STOURTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the matter is an urgent one?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If representations are made to the Committee, I am sure they will lose no time in dealing with them.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to a shortage of bricks in this country?

Mr. LYONS: Is it a fact that there is too much work put upon the shoulders of the Import Duties Advisory Committee?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is quite a different subject.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any treaties or agreements exist between Great Britain and foreign or Dominion countries which preclude countervailing duties being imposed on agricultural products sold in Great Britain at a less price than in the country of origin?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. Countervailing duties of the kind suggested are precluded by numerous treaties and arrangements with foreign countries. It is generally provided in these instruments that we shall both give and enjoy the right to the admission of all goods at rates of duty no higher than those applied to any other foreign country. As regards the Dominions, I would remind my right hon. Friend that under the Ottawa Agreements the Dominions concerned enjoy
entry free of duty into this country for practically all their agricultural products.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the Government consider putting on countervailing duties in order to prevent having to subsidise farmers to save them from bankruptcy?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid the Government cannot depart from the usual procedure in the matter, which provides for cases of this kind.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the cause of the delay in announcing the completion of a scheme for subsidising tramp shipping; and by what date he expects that agreement with regard to this matter will be reached?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware that there has been any avoidable delay in this matter. My hon. and gallant Friend may be assured that every effort is being made to reach a satisfactory decision at the earliest possible date.

IMPORTS.

Mr. CHORLTON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a list can be prepared and circulated of imports into this country which can readily be manufactured at home?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Imports into the United Kingdom are classified under many hundreds of different headings. I am not sure what meaning my hon. Friend attaches to the phrase "readily manufactured." In any case I hardly think that a list of the kind proposed would serve any useful purpose even if it proved practicable to compile it.

Mr. CHORLTON: In view of the importance of starting new industries in districts where unemployment is considerable, and that the right hon. Gentleman has the best information available to assist in the selection of such industries, will he not issue such a list?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt the usual stimulus exists in the district from which the hon. Member comes as well as elsewhere.

Mr. PIKE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that such information would be a direct guide to the Tariff Advisory Board?

RUMANIA (EXCHANGE FACILITIES).

Mr. CHORLTON: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any action is contemplated with relation to frozen remittances from Rumania?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer hon. Friend to the answer I gave on November to the hon. Member Bradford North (Sir E. Ramsden) this subject.

CORDAGE (EXPORTS FROM TANGANYIKA).

Mr. MANDER: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the action which has been taken or is contemplated by the Government with reference to the prohibition of the export of binder twine or other cordage to this country from the mandated territory of Tanganyika?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I have been asked to reply. None, Sir.

SILK INDUSTRY (JAPANESE COMPEITION).

Colonel BROCKLEBANK (for Mr. REMER): 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has given consideration to the resolution of the joint industrial council for the silk industry on the question of Japanese competition; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a reply which has been sent to the Joint Industrial Council for the Silk Industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

LOSS OF S.S. "MILLPOOL."

Mr. LOGAN: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any inquiry is to be held into the loss of the s.s. "Millpool"?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should like in the first place to express my deep sympathy, in which I am sure the House will join, with the relatives of those lost in this disaster. An inquiry is being made into the circumstances, and upon the result of this enquiry must depend the decision whether a formal investigation can be usefully be held.

Mr. LOGAN: Can we have information at an early date?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will put down a question, say, a fortnight to-day, I will see what can be done.

CUNARD AND WHITE STAR NORTH ATLANTIC FLEETS (MERGER).

Mr. MACLEAN: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of people who have been dismissed to date by the White Star Line as a result of the merger with the Cunard Company; whether any compensation has been paid to all of them; and whether any conditions were imposed upon those companies by the Government to compensate those who would lose their employment when granting the subsidy for the completion of the "Queen Mary"?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The merger of the Cunard and White Star North Atlantic fleets which rendered possible the resumption of work on the "Queen Mary," and thus secured a great volume of renewed employment, necessarily entailed some reduction of the establishments of the Oceanic and Cunard Companies. Ordinarily I should not of course be informed of administrative questions such as the hon. Member refers to, which are naturally matters for the Directors of the Company concerned. But it was in fact intimated to me during the negotiations which led up to the merger that the companies proposed, of their own initiative, to make arrangements for the payment of compensation in cases of loss of employment from this cause.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (EX-RANKER OFFICERS).

Major MILNER: 18.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that none of the members of the Barnes Committee, appointed in 1924 to consider the grievances of ex-service ranker officers, had any personal or specialised knowledge of Army regulations or practices; whether they had any independent advice on such regulations or practices; and whether he will inquire further into the case of these officers with a view to remedying their present disadvantages?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The object of setting up the Barnes Committee was to secure that the grievances
of these officers were considered by an entirely impartial body of persons of standing and wide general experience. The claims of the officers were represented by Captain F. D. Bone and in addition many officers represented their own cases. The Committee arrived at their conclusions after hearing all the evidence and their findings were accepted not only by the Government of the day and by successive Governments, but also by the House itself after Debate. I can see no ground for re-opening the question.

Major MILNER: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question? Had any members of the Barnes Committee any personal or specialised knowledge of Army practices or regulations, and had they any independent advice on such practices or regulations? He has carefully avoided answering those questions.

Mr. HACKING: No, I have not. I have said that this body was entirely impartial and had not any expert knowledge.

Major MILNER: Had it any independent advice on such Army regulations or practices?

Mr. HACKING: It had the advice of the persons who appeared before it, the same as any other committee. Mr. Paterson represented the War Office.

Major MILNER: Was not Mr. Paterson the only individual advising that committee on the Army regulations and practices?

Mr. HACKING: As far as I know, he was the only representative from the War Office.

Mr. WILMOT: Am I to understand from the reply that the Government have definitely decided to do nothing with regard to these ex-ranker officers?

Mr. HACKING: I would go further than that—

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Alfred Knox.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 19.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what would be the approximate annual cost of satisfying the demands of ex-ranker officers?

Mr. HACKING: In 1923 the cost of this claim and the consequential claims which
it would be difficult to resist was estimated at a diminishing annual charge of £675,000, without including widows' pensions. Data for a revised estimate are not available, and I do not think that the work involved in obtaining them would be justifiable having regard to the fact that the claims of these officers were decided on their merits and without reference to the cost involved.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not a fact that the number of claimants for this pension is constantly diminishing, the average age being 62, and would not the amount now involved be so much less, something like £100,000?

Mr. HACKING: I do not know what the amount involved now would be. It would certainly be less than the figure I have given, but it would still be a very considerable sum of money.

Sir A. KNOX: Would it not be common justice for the Government to do this thing in order to satisfy the claims of a most deserving class?

Mr. HACKING: That is really not the point. These men have no legal claim at all, and if we reopened their claims we should have to reopen thousands of claims from others who have just as much right to demand charity from the State. The Government do not think that is a desirable thing.

Mr. JANNER: In view of the fact that there is a considerable amount of feeling in the matter and that the amount is so small, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it possible to reopen this case?

Mr. HACKING: The hon. Member says that the amount involved is small. I said the other day, in answer to a question, that the total amount involved was no less than £10,000,000, which is a very considerable sum.

Major MILNER: Arising out of the original question—

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must not argue this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

DUKE STREET PRISON. GLASGOW.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many
prisoners can be lodged in the Glasgow Prison, Duke Street, Glasgow; how many prisoners are there at the present time; and what is the highest number that has been there at any time during the past year?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): Duke Street Prison, Glasgow, has cell accommodation for 563 prisoners—159 males and 404 females. The number in custody at the present time is 100–8 males and 92 females; and the highest number at any time during the past year has been 129–14 males and 115 females.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total cost of keeping the prisoners and maintaining the establishment of the prison at Duke Street, Glasgow; the total cost per prisoner actually detained; and whether he will consider making arrangements for the detention of the prisoners elsewhere so as to admit of the disposal of the prison building, and thereby effect a great city improvement in Glasgow?

Sir G. COLLINS: The gross cost of keeping the prisoners and maintaining the establishment of the prison at Duke Street, Glasgow, in the calendar year 1933 was £8,211, and the cost per prisoner just over £82 per annum. The possibility of making other arrangements for the detention of prisoners presently accommodated in Duke Street Prison is being constantly kept in view, but a suitable property has not yet been found.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that there are only, on an average, 129 prisoners in Duke Street Gaol while there is accommodation for well nigh a thousand, will not the right hon. Gentleman co-operate with the Glasgow Town Council with a view to having this blot on the landscape removed?

Sir G. COLLINS: As I mentioned in the reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, we are keeping the matter constantly in mind and endeavouring to get other suitable accommodation, but unfortunately suitable other accommodation has not yet been found.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Surely there is plenty of suitable accommodation in Scotland for a prison other than right in the centre of the city of Glasgow?

Sir G. COLLINS: As my hon. Friend knows, we must get accommodation fairly near to the places where the prisoners are sentenced.

MILK SITUATION.

Mr. LEONARD: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Scottish Milk Marketing Board imposes a charge upon all registered milk producers for transport, based upon presumed delivery to Glasgow, Edinburgh, or Dundee, thereby making a profit on transport charges; and whether he is prepared to consider the revision of this practice in order to bring it into line with the English practice of charging the producer with the costs incurred only between the farm and the actual point of delivery?

Sir G. COLLINS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part the committee of investigation for Scotland, as the hon. Member is aware, recently recommended that six additional haulage centres should be provided in the eastern district, and I am at present considering their recommendation.

Mr. LEONARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite this matter in view of the discontent that is occurring in Scotland?

Sir G. COLLINS: The hon. Member may not be aware that I am meeting the various parties concerned next Friday.

Lord SCONE: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now able to make a statement regarding the position of the milk industry in Scotland?

Sir G. COLLINS: I assume that my Noble Friend refers to the milk situation in the East of Scotland. The meeting with representatives of interested parties to which I referred in my statement on Friday last, has been postponed, on the request of the East of Scotland Milk Producers' Federation, till Friday next.

Lord SCONE: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether, in the event of agreement being reached on the proposals made by the committee of investigation, such proposals will necessitate further legislation or not?

Sir G. COLLINS: No, Sir.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of excluding isolated rural communities in the North of Scotland from the operation of the marketing scheme?

Sir G. COLLINS: That matter does not arise on the question.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Scottish Milk Board intend to publish a report on their first year's working similar to the report recently published by the Potato Marketing Board?

Sir G. COLLINS: The first report of the board covering the period from 26th May, 1933, to 31st January, 1934, has already been issued. I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend. Further information with regard to the working of the scheme is contained in the Official Journal subsequently published by the board and issued every month.

RURAL WATER SUPPLIES (GRANTS).

Lord SCONE: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the County of Dumfries has received over £49,000 of the £137,500 provided for the improvement of Scottish rural water supplies; and whether he is satisfied that the Dumfriesshire ratepayers can be reasonably asked to contribute the remaining £180,000 which is required to carry out the approved schemes?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): In considering applications for grant under the Rural Water Supplies Act, 1934, the Department of Health for Scotland had regard to two factors, namely:—(1) the need of each of the areas concerned for a public water supply or an improved water supply from the point of view of public health and housing, and (2) the burden of rates in the area. The grant of £49,417 offered to the Dumfries County Council was allocated on this basis. In regard to the second part of the question, I am satisfied that the amount which the ratepayers will be required to contribute if the offers of grant are accepted bears a reasonable relation to the contribution by the State.

Lord SCONE: Will my hon. Friend state whether from these figures one may assume that the County of Dumfries was
previously in a worse position with regard to water supply than any other part of Scotland?

Mr. SKELTON: I have already told my Noble Friend the considerations on which the grant is decided, and I think he can make the deduction for himself.

HARBOURS, PIERS, AND FERRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Mr. H. STEWART: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the objections to the Harbours, Piers, and Ferries (Scotland) Bill, as stated by the Fife County Council in their representations to the Scottish Fishery Board; and whether he proposes to make any changes in the Bill in view of the arguments there stated?

Sir G. COLLINS: The representations made by the county council will be considered, along with other representations, before the Bill is reintroduced.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS, GLASGOW (BROADCASTING).

Mr. MACLEAN: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that in the recent municipal elections in Glasgow several vans were going round the city broadcasting election matter before and during polling day; whether the permission necessary under the city's by-laws was obtained; and, if so, whether he can state to which city official the application for a permit was sent and by what official or corporation committee permission was granted?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have made inquiry and am informed that during the recent municipal election in Glasgow several vehicles were utilised for the purpose inter alia of broadcasting election matter. I understand that no application was made for permission to use these vehicles. The granting of permits is a matter for the magistrates' committee, and is not one in which I have any power to intervene.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if this was a direct violation of the by-laws of the city, he intends to bring the matter before the corporation or magistrates' committee to see what action they are likely to take?

Sir G. COLLINS: If a contravention of the Section be alleged, the appropriate
course is to report the fact to the Public Prosecutor.

Mr. MACLEAN: Since the right hon. Gentleman has now made himself acquainted that the matter contained in the question has actually occurred, will he as Secretary of State instruct the Procurator-Fiscal of Glasgow to take action

Sir G. COLLINS: No, Sir. It is the duty of the citizens of Glasgow in this matter, and not mine.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the definition of a loud speaker on a van?

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams).

SHEEP FARM, MONTROSE.

Mr. LEONARD: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how far the Commissioners of Crown Lands have proceeded in their negotiations to let the Montrose sheep farm called the Binns?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The farm has been advertised to let and a few inquiries have been received, but no definite result has yet been reached.

Mr. LEONARD: Is the Minister aware that if the stock on this farm be valued on the same basis as applied to the disposal of Fintry farms, the loss to the State will be £5,000, and will he delay proceedings until the Government decide whether legislative action should follow the Lord Kinross report?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have to make the best bargain I can in the circumstances.

Mr. LEONARD: Will the Minister take steps to see that the valuation of the stock shall, as has been laid down by two Supreme Court decisions, be the value to an incoming tenant?

Oral Answers to Questions — HERRING FISHING INDUSTRY.

Mr. BOOTHBY: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in a position to state the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the herring fishing industry?

Sir G. COLLINS: I regret I cannot at present add anything to the replies I gave last Tuesday to the hon. and gallant
Member for Banffshire (Sir M. Wood), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. I fully recognise the importance of an early decision.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the necessity of passing any legislation which the Government may have in view before the opening of the fishing season next year, and will he give an undertaking to that effect?

Sir G. COLLINS: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the situation that will arise next year in this industry.

Mr. HALES: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, having regard to the desperate condition of the herring industry and allied trades, he will consider inaugurating a publicity campaign drawing the attention of the public to the cheapness and health-giving properties of the herring, in order to save a declining British industry from extinction?

Mr. LOFTUS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that since the conclusion of the Anglo-German payments agreement the prices for herring have been quite satisfactory? Is it not also a fact that the only objection to this satisfactory state of affairs—

Mr. SPEAKER: Order. The hon. Member is making a speech.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing attention in this way to the cheapness and health-giving properties of the herring. The Ministry has published a leaflet, a copy of which I am sending my hon. Friend, drawing attention to the value of the herring as food and giving recipes for cooking it. This leaflet had considerable publicity in the Press, and the British Broadcasting Corporation have also been very helpful in bringing the subject of herring to the public mind. Officers of the Ministry would always be very ready to give to those interested any information at their disposal which might be made use of in popularising the consumption of this food.

Mr. HALES: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to making a personal appeal to the public to introduce the herring into the household menu on one day in the week? So that he may
have personal experience of a cooked herring, will he accept from me this herring now in my hand?

Mr. H. STEWART: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that perhaps the better way of relieving the distress in the industry would be for the Government to introduce measures for the complete reorganisation of the herring trade?

Sir PERCY HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the use of the herring would be much greater if he could devise means to breed the herring without bones?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR INDUSTRY (MARKETING SCHEME).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the producers of sugar in the British Colonies and Dominions have been consulted regarding the sugar marketing scheme put forward by the United Kingdom Sugar Industry Committee; and, if so, whether he will make public any representations he has received from them on the scheme?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. The scheme in question has had the usual public inquiry, when it was open to any interested to bring forward representations. Subsequent to the preliminary stages, any marketing scheme, as my hon. and gallant Friend Till be aware, must be laid before both Houses of Parliament for approval or rejection, and during these various stages discussion on all the questions at issue is entirely free and public.

Sir A. WILSON: 33.
asked the Minister of agriculture whether ht received a report on the inquiry held by Mr. Joshua Scholefield, K.C., into the proposed sugar marketing scheme; and whether he intends to make public the terms of the report and the evidence submitted?

Mr. ELLIOT: The report was presented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself in June last. The inquiry was held in public for six days and the evidence submitted has therefore already been made public. The Commissioner's report on any such inquiry is, as my hon. and gallant Friend will recollect, submitted direct to the Minister and is confidential.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Mr. LEONARD: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that the English Milk Marketing Board is paying to the Scottish Milk Marketing Board a subsidy of £182,000 a year for the purpose of keeping Scottish milk off the English market, he can state the basis on which this payment has been fixed; and whether any similar arrangement is proposed with regard to cream?

Mr. ELLIOT: As regards the first part of the question, no details of the various arrangements made between the two Boards have been published, and I am not in a position to give the information asked for. As regards the second part, I am not aware that any arrangements are proposed in the case of cream.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is it correct that English farmers are having money taken from them and handed over to Scotland to the extent of £182,000?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. No one is taking any money away from the English farmers. Any action taken is taken by them through their representatives.

Sir P. HARRIS: The £182,000 must come from somebody, either from the farmers or the consumers.

IMPORTED FOODSTUFFS.

Commander MARSDEN: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what proportion of the total food consumed in Great Britain is imported, and what is this amount in tons?

Mr. ELLIOT: The latest information on this subject is contained in the "Report on the Agricultural Output and Food Supplies of Great Britain" issued in 1929, which indicated that about 40 per cent. by value of our food supplies were home produced. Owing to the varying nature of the commodities comprised in the food supply, a total figure cannot be given by reference to weight.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Do the figures that the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned represent an increase over last year in the volume of the competitive imported foodstuffs?

Mr. ELLIOT: These figures were issued in 1929, and they are based on the years 1924–1927.

MARKETING BOARDS (REPORTS).

Mr. H. STEWART: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if the Milk, Pigs, and Bacon Boards intend to publish reports on their first year's working similar to the report recently published by the Potato Marketing Board?

Mr. ELLIOT: The Potato, Milk, Pigs and Bacon Marketing Schemes contain provisions requiring the boards concerned to send a report on the working of the scheme in each annual accounting period to every registered producer and to the Minister. The Potato Marketing Board's report covered the period from the inception of the scheme until 31st August, 1934. The Milk, Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards have issued reports for the periods ended 31st March last in the case of the Milk Marketing Board and 31st December, 1933, in the case of the other two boards.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMARY COURTS (SOCIAL SERVICES) DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.

Sir A. WILSON: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the terms of reference of the Summary Courts (Social Services) Departmental Committee cover consideration of the reform of the constitution and procedure of courts of summary jurisdiction when dealing with matrimonial disputes, including limitation of access to the courts by Press and public, limitation of number of justices forming the court, and the addition of lay justices to the courts of stipendiary magistrates, or whether the committee will consider only the better formal investigation of such cases by probation officers?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The function of the committee is to consider the organisation of the social services connected with the administration of justice in summary courts, including the work done by probation officers by way of conciliation in matrimonial cases. It is believed that fuller knowledge of the extent to which extra-judicial methods of conciliation can be used effectively will greatly facilitate the consideration of the question whether changes are desirable
in the constitution and procedure of the courts, along the lines suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (MOTOR CARS).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 41.
asked the Home Secretary when his Department purchased motor cars for the use of the police from the Ford Motor Company and the number bought; and whether he has made inquiry as to those motor cars being made under the conditions laid clown in the Fair Wages Clause?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Motor vehicles for the use of the Metropolitan Police have been purchased by the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District from the Ford Motor Company in considerable numbers during the last two and a-half years, and the total is over 300. These purchases have not been made under contract, but the Receiver has had no reason to suppose that the conditions of the Fair Wages Clause are not observed at the Dagenham factory where the cars in question are made.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If I send information showing that parts of these cars are not made under fair conditions, will the right hon. Gentleman have inquiry made?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Certainly.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Thanks.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (MILK SUPPLIES).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 42.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will circularise local education authorities with a view to ensuring that they shall purchase, for use in their schools, all available supplies of certified and Grade A (T.T.) milk; and whether he is aware that a farmer in the Westhoughton Urban District Council's area holds a Ministry cf Health licence for the production of certified and Grade A (T.T.) milk, and would be able to supply all the schools within that area with that milk?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): My Noble Friend understands that certified and Grade A (T.T.) milk are outside the scope of the Milk.
Marketing Board's scheme, unless the producer is prepared to supply these varieties as ordinary milk and becomes registered with the Milk Marketing Board as a producer. He does not propose to circularise local education authorities in the sense suggested. As regards the second part of the question, my Noble Friend's attention has not been drawn to the circumstances mentioned.

Mr. DAVIES: May I ask whether it is competent for the local authority to make up the difference by payment to the farmer for the best quality milk?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Yes, I think that is so, having regard to what the ratepayers may say and possibly the district auditor.

Mr. PIKE: Does the same thing apply when the farmer happens to be the Cooperative Wholesale Society?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

GOODS VEHICLES (KEEPING OF RECORDS).

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 43 and 44.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that under the Goods Vehicles (Keeping of Records) Regulations a retail trader who drives a motor goods vehicle for half-an-hour only during a day is required to make a long return comprising 12 separate entries; and whether he is prepared to amend the regulations to require less detailed record keeping in connection with such a short period of driving;
(2) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Goods Vehicles (Keeping of Records) Regulations require more information to be recorded by the part-time driver of a small motor goods vehicle than is required from a person who is wholly engaged in driving a heavy motor goods vehicle; and whether he is prepared to amend the regulations so as to reduce the number of entries which a part-time driver of a motor goods vehicle is now required to make?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): These regulations, which were made after consultation with the Transport Advisory Council, provide for the keeping of records in accordance with the terms of the Act under which they
were made, but I will certainly consider with the Council whether some simplification is possible consistently with the intentions of Parliament, and will bear my hon. Friend's representations in mind.

STREET NOISES.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport whether examination of the problem of deafness caused by pneumatic drills is included in the terms of reference of the anti-noise committee?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Committee's terms of reference are limited to noises arising from the operation of mechanically propelled vehicles.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: In view of the deafening noise of pneumatic drills will the hon. Member consider the suggestion that this problem might be included in the terms of reference?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Committee's terms of reference are confined to noises made by vehicles, and they are not armed with powers to make recommendations concerning these particular kind of noises. I have no power to make any regulations dealing with noises made by pneumatic drills, much as I deplore them.

Mr. WILMOT: Is it not the case that they are attached to mechanically propelled vehicles.

MOTOR VEHICLES (SILENCERS).

Mr. TOUCHE: 57.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any steps have been taken to obtain the voluntary cooperation of the Society of Motor Manufacturers with a view to preventing the manufacture of motor cars with inadequate or ineffective silencers?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. My Department has for some time been in touch with the society on this matter and the society has also accepted an invitation to appoint a representative to serve on the committee which I recently appointed to consider the steps which might be taken to reduce noise arising from the use of motor vehicles.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEARDMORE'S MARINE ENGINEERING WORKS.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will take over Messrs. Beardmore's
marine engineering works at Dalmuir, which are being closed by the firm, with a view to the building of engines and other equipment there for ships of the Navy or for aeroplanes or other national purposes?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): No, Sir; I am advised that adequate facilities are already available for meeting Government requirements in the directions indicated.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Am I to understand that the Prime Minister is going to allow one of the best equipped engineering shipyards in Britain to be scrapped by the National Shipbuilding Securities, Ltd., when their purpose is to scrap redundant shipyards and engineering shipyards, and that by no stretch of the imagination can this yard be classed in that category?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it is possible to agree with the hon. Member in the matter of redundancy.

Mr. TINKER: As regards the closing down of works, have the Cabinet any idea of planning ahead?

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that in a district which is scheduled as a distressed area, the Government can deal with it in this way, and, seeing that this shipyard was one of the mainstays of the Government during and since the War, will he take steps to prevent this kind of thing happening on the Clyde and elsewhere?

Mr. RADFORD: In giving consideration to this subject, will the Government also take into account the closed engineering works in the Manchester district?

Mr. LAWSON: In the conference with the National Shipbuilding Securities, Ltd., can the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration any question of the future planning of these areas?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member will put a question to the President of the Board of Trade on the subject, he will be glad to exchange views on the matter.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Prime Minister has referred to the President of the Board of Trade. I have done that. Is
the right hon. Gentleman aware that this engineering shop is one of the best equipped in Britain, and that it is the birthplace, the cradle of engineering, as it is the place where Robert Napier laid down shipbuilding engineering shops as we understand them?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DEBTS.

Mr. MABANE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the declaration in No. 1 of the further documents relating to the settlement reached at the Lausanne Conference, Lausanne, 16th June to 9th July, 1932 [Cmd. 4129], to the effect that if no settlement can be obtained about their own debt by the creditor Governments on whose behalf the final act of the Lausanne Conference was done, then the agreement with Germany would not be ratified, that a new situation would have arisen, and that the Governments interested will have to consult together as to what should be done; and whether, as no such settlement has in fact been obtained, it is his intention to call a further conference of the Powers in accordance with the guarantee he gave, as Chairman of the Lausanne Conference, to the German Chancellor on 8th July, 1932?

The PRIME MINISTER: In the present situation of the War Debts question, I do not consider that the circumstances in which it was agreed to call a further Conference have arisen, and it is not my intention to do so.

Mr. MABANE: Can the Prime Minister say whether he has any definite term in his mind for the present indeterminate situation, in view of the danger of Europe finding itself back on the Young plan?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think the hon. Member need apprehend such a situation.

Captain P. MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any demand has been made for further payments from Germany?

Mr. MABANE: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have now decided that a satisfactory settlement with the United States of America about War debts cannot be obtained, or whether the negotiations are still to be regarded as in progress?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Are we to take it that the whole question of international debts is at present in abeyance both with regard to the Lausanne Conference, and the Conference with the United States?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member can draw his own conclusions.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINIONS (SIR M. HANKEY'S VISIT).

Mr. MANDER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether Sir Maurice Hankey's visit to the Dominions of South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand has any political object; and if it is possible to make any statement on the subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative. Sir Maurice Hankey is visiting Australia as the guest of the Commonwealth Government during the celebration of the Centenary of Victoria, and he has also been invited by the Government of New Zealand to visit that Dominion. For personal reasons, he travelled to Australia by way of the Union of South Africa, and he will return from New Zealand by way of Canada.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRESSED AREAS (COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS).

Mr. MACLEAN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the material contained in Appendices I, III, V and VI to the Commissioners' Report on Depressed Areas in Scotland is to be considered of a confidential nature; and, if not, whether they will be published separately, as the reader is referred frequently to the appendices?

The PRIME MINISTER: The general conclusions to be drawn from the appendices are embodied in the report, and the only reason for not printing the many pages of detailed statistics collected in the course of the investigation is that of expense. I shall be happy to arrange for the appendices to be shown to the hon. Member if he cares to see them.

Mr. MACLEAN: I thank the Prime Minister for the offer, which I shall be glad to accept. Is it not the case that many other persons in the areas and outside are equally interested in finding out
how the conclusions of the Commissioners were arrived at? They cannot do that unless they see the appendices, and particularly Appendix No. 3.

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member, I am sure, is placing too much importance on the appendices. It is true that they entered largely into the conclusions, but the conclusions can be understood and justified or condemned quite apart from the tremendous amount of figures which would be involved in printing the appendices, which even the hon. Member with all his assiduity would take some time to understand.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am prepared to make the attempt, as likewise are many others.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN LOANS (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the treatment by local and national authorities inflicted upon British investments in Brazil, Argentina, China, Germany, Greece, Rumania and other foreign countries, instances of which have been brought to the notice of this House, he will remind would-be foreign borrowers of this grievance before there is any relaxation of the embargo on the issue in England of foreign loans?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that foreign countries are already fully aware that they cannot expect to borrow in this market on acceptable terms unless their local and national authorities accord reasonable treatment to British interests. I would add that, as I informed the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. M. Mason) on the 1st November, I see no immediate prospect of a change in the existing position as regards the issue of foreign loans here.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEATH DUTIES.

Mr. STOURTON: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether agreement has been reached between the Treasury and the beneficiaries under the £5,000,000 will of Sir James Knott for the payment of the full scale of the United Kingdom death duties which it was sought to avoid through foreign domicile and whether he will consider introducing
legislation to invalidate domicile abroad for a period of 10 years prior to death, with a view to overcoming such evasion at the expense of the community?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of this question, I am unable to add anything to my reply to a question by my hon. Friend on this subject on the 28th of June last, when I informed him that I was not prepared to disclose information as to the position in regard to taxation in a particular case. As regards the second part, I have considered my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I do not think it would be effective in securing the object. that he has in view.

Mr. STOURTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that such evasion has been deliberately tolerated by the Government for years? Can he say when we may expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take action?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as Christmas day this year falls on a Tuesday and the following day is a bank holiday, he will consider the possibility of declaring Monday, 24th December, a bank holiday, thus giving to shop assistants and other workers an opportunity of spending four days with their families?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have considered my hon. Friend's suggestion, but am satisfied that it would not be in the public interest to adopt it.

Sir W. WAYLAND: Is it not the case that only the milk and bread trades would be inconvenienced?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the importance of the report to be issued by the Indian Joint Select Committee, he will arrange for it to be issued at a price which will enable it to secure the widest possible circulation?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): In order that the report and proceedings of the Joint Select Committee on Indian
Constitutional Reform may have as wide a circulation as possible, arrangements are being made for them to be sold at the price of 1s. and 1s. 6d. each respectively. I understand that the Government of India is also arranging similarly for publication in India at a specially low price.

Mr. WHITE: I thank the hon. Member for the reply. May I ask him to refresh. his memory in the case of the Coal Commission Report, which was issued at 3d.?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (ACCOUNTANTS).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that under present conditions governing appointments it is impossible for any person qualified as a chartered or incorporated accountant to be admitted into the Civil Service; and whether he will take steps to remove this barrier?

Mr. COOPER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my predecessor on the 6th March, 1933, to, which I have nothing to add.

Mr. DAVIES: Does not the hon. Member think it very anomalous that the best qualified young men as accountants in this country can never hope to enter into such a post in any Government Department?

Mr. COOPER: It is open to young men to enter the Civil Service and become accountants afterwards.

Mr. DAVIES: Is it not impossible for them to become chartered accountants. and then enter the Civil Service?

Mr. COOPER: It is possible for a young man to equip himself by passing the necessary examination after entering the Civil Service. If he passes the examination before then, he becomes too, old to enter the Civil Service in the ordinary way.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 58.
asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that a conspiracy has been made to take possession of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and whether steps are being taken to prosecute the individuals concerned?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have no evidence as to any such conspiracy. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to a statement in the Press, made by a gentleman to this effect, and, seeing that he has no information, I would ask him: Is it not a criminal thing for a gentleman to know of this conspiracy and not report it to the authorities; and will he take action against the gentleman who has stated that, this thing did take place and that he did not report such a thing to the authorities concerned

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The answer to all the questions is "No, Sir."

Mr. BUCHANAN: Am I to understand that there is a difference of treatment as between people who hold posts of honour and distinction and poor people? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that in this matter the law is equally carried out, as laid down and entrusted to him?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There is no discrimination in the administration of the law between rich and poor, as far as this matter is concerned. I would call the hon. Member's attention to the law as regards privilege, when he asks me to prosecute on a statement made in another place.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not a crime for a person to know about a conspiracy that is to take place and not to inform the authorities, and why is this gentleman who occupies a prominent position not prosecuted for what the Attorney-General knows is a crime?

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Does the Attorney-General not know that this thing has already been captured by the official Socialist party?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Attorney-General said it was a case of privilege. Are we to understand that a Member of the House of Lords is outwith the pale of the law, and can do and say what he likes?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to give notice that at the first opportunity I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIVER TAME (POLLUTION).

Mr. MANDER: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the
present position with regard to the steps that are being taken in connection with the pollution of the River Tame in its passage through Willenhall?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The sources of pollution have been difficult to trace, but I am informed that it appears to arise from old culverts and impregnated subsoil. Active steps are being taken to abate the pollution, but from its nature complete abatement will take some time.

Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. Gentleman say who is taking these active steps?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The borough of Wolverhampton.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, JARROW).

Mr. PEARSON: 62.
asked the First Commissioner of Works when it is proposed to commence building a new Employment Exchange for Jarrow; and whether local labour is to be employed on the building?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Tenders have been invited for the erection of a new building and I propose to draw the attention of the successful tenderer to the great desirability of employing local labour as far as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIGRATION POLICY.

Brigadier-General NATION: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on what date the Dominion Governments were invited for their observations on the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Migration Policy?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The report was circulated to His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions and to the Governments of the Australian States on 7th September last. Their observations thereon are being invited by despatches which issued last week.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is the Prime Minister aware that the 11 o'clock rule has been suspended every night since the House resumed and that last night the House was forced to sit till nearly 6 o'clock?

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

Sir W. DAVISON: Because the Government are introducing unpopular Measures. Does the Prime Minister think it is consonant with his statement that he does not wish to have a dictatorship in this country, and will he say how far he proposes to go to-night?

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that Members on the Government side of the House were the cause of our sitting late last night?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am very sorry, but we must get this Bill through. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the Government have decided, and that is the reason Why all Bills have to be got through. I am very sorry, but it must be done.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Prime Minister did not deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend, who asked what were the intentions of the Government as to the hour to which they would compel the House to sit to-night? May I draw attention to the fact that Part II of the Bill was not taken till after dinner time, was not taken except in the dark hours and the very late dark hours, and that, as far as we can see, unless some arrangement be entered into, the whole of the Third Reading will take place at a time when the country will be entirely deprived of any enlightenment on the broad issues? Would the Prime Minister say whether he has any suggestions which might mitigate those consequences or avoid them, and also how far he wishes to press the House to continue sitting to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: A similar question was put to me yesterday, and I really am not in a position to name an hour beyond which the Government cannot go. The Government desire to get business through on account of the limitation put upon the sittings of this Session. When the right hon. Gentleman suggested an arrangement, I do not know whether he had anything of that kind in mind, but I can assure him that the Government will be only too glad to accommodate those who have views and very strong views on some parts of the Bill, provided that we get the Bill to-night before the sitting adjourns. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we desire to bring the Session
to a close at this time, and, if he would be so good as to come to our assistance, the Government would be only too glad through the usual channels to come to an arrangement which would enable him to say what he wishes to say and would also enable us to get the Bill which we want to get.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I take it, then, from my right hon. Friend that the view of the Government is that the discussion should be as full as the House desires, having regard to the limitation on time?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

Sir P. HARRIS: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) is leading an opposition party against the Government and is no longer supporting the Government?

Mr. LAWSON: May I say, Sir, that we on this side feel very much embarrassed by being present at this party meeting?

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Prime Minister has not answered the question as to how long we are to sit to-night. Am I to understand that he intends to pass the Bill through all the remaining stages to-night no matter to what the House has to sit? Is that the position? We are to sit on and the Government must get the Third Reading.

The PRIME MINISTER indicated assent.

Mr. LANSBURY: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware and as the House is aware, a large number of Members want a, discussion on another matter which is of vital interest to the people of the country. I hope very much that he will get this Bill out of the way at this Sitting and stick to the arrangement by which we are to have a discussion tomorrow on the other matter which is at least of equal importance.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In order to allow the issues referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, which I agree are of far more importance than this Bill, to receive proper discussion, may I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw this Bill arid proceed to-day with the discussion of the other matters referred to?

The PRIME MINISTER: It has been made perfectly clear in the House fr6m the beginning of this part of the Session that
to-morrow would be set apart for a discussion on the specially distressed areas. We have also promised that, if any time is left over on Thursday from the essential work of the House, that remaining time will be devoted to the same subject. We propose rigidly to carry out that agreement, but we believe we can do so and also get the Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But is it not a shocking arrangement that we "may" get some opportunity for discussion of the depressed areas on the Thursday? Would it not be better, instead of devoting today to totalisators and greyhounds, to make sure that we would have the discussion of the distressed areas by allocating to-day to that purpose?

Sir W. DAVISON: May I ask whether the Prime Minister or the Lord President of the Council will be present during the discussions to-night?

Motion made, and Question,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House),
put, and agreed to.—[The Prime Minister.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Fifth Report from the Committee on Public Petitions brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Incitement to Disaffection Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — BETTING AND LOTTERIES BILL [Lords].

Order for further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, read.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I venture to adumbrate, for I can do no more, to the House a suggestion which may be for the convenience of the House and the efficiency of our Debates arid which I dare say would not be unacceptable to Members who took part in the long discussion of last night. In order to do so, I venture, purely, for technical reasons and to put myself in order, to move "That the Debate be now adjourned." I wish first to say that although we sat very late last night it was a very good-tempered discussion.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot move that Motion, because there was no Debate in progress when he rose to speak.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I presume, then, that this must be treated as a party conversation. I was saying that the Debate of last night although protracted was good-tempered, and for my part I certainly acknowledge the good temper which was preserved by the great majority of Members. The position which we have now reached is that we may consume the whole of to-day's sitting in the discussion of Amendments and only reach the Third Reading of the Bill in the late hours of to-night or the small hours of to-morrow morning. Thus there would not be a proper opportunity for any general discussion at all. Is there no means by which we could have a general discussion or a discussion as general as possible on Part II of the Bill? We have now reached Clause 21, the Clause which you, Sir, were about to call upon, and if it were agreeable to this House I suggest that we might have on Clause 21 a discussion covering the whole question of Part II of the Bill. That would enable a discussion on wide lines to take place, and I imagine it would greatly lighten the proceedings on the Third Reading of the Bill, although the two discussions
would not be strictly analogous and would not cover exactly the same ground. Yet there would be an opportunity during the afternoon to cover the main issues raised in Part II and that should certainly abridge the discussion upon the Third Reading. I only throw that out as a suggestion which would be of advantage to the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is addressing his suggestion to me or to the Government.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was hopeful that I might first see an indication from the Government that such a course would be agreeable to them, provided that you, Sir, saw fit to associate the House with it.

3.48 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I think I may say on behalf of the Government that they are always prepared to enter into any negotiations and arrangements which are agreeable to the House as a whole, provided that the Government obtain the business which has been set down for discussion. Any proposal put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) will naturally receive our careful consideration. It seems to me that his proposal that we should have now, on the first Amendment on the Paper, a general discussion of Part II—provided that that was allowed by you, Mr. Speaker—would dispose of one important point which is in controversy. But I think I ought to ask the right hon. Gentleman and his friends and the House as a whole whether it is understood that this first discussion, rambling over the whole of Part II, will be brought to a conclusion about dinner-time so that after dinner-time we can proceed to discuss such of the other Amendments on the Paper as are called by you, Mr. Speaker, without protracting the Debate. In that way, if the House as a whole approves, we might dispose of all the Amendments on the Paper say by 11 o'clock. Then in whatever time remains between 11 o'clock and the time at which the House is disposed to go home, the Third Reading Debate could take place. If the two Oppositions, and also the Opposition led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, agree to that proposal, and
the House in general accede to the arrangement, I am certain, speaking for the Government, that we should be prepared to carry it into effect.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think I am pretty well expressing the opinions of hon. Members on these benches when I say that we are always glad to enter into an arrangement which is generally accepted in all parts of the House, but having sat here until after five o'clock this morning, we must be doubly sure, before the right hon. Gentleman starts on this general Debate on Clause 21, that the Amendments on the Order Paper that are called are going to be taken at a reasonable time, and the Third Reading too. There are so many parties in the House at this moment. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) is a newly adopted leader from last Tuesday evening, and we do not know how long he will be the leader of the malcontents on the Government benches. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman does speak for the hon. Members for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), and several other very active Members in the House on the Government side, and we can be assured that, after the general Debate on Clause 21, we are not going to be left to hold the baby until well into to-morrow morning, I am sure we shall be willing to enter into such an arrangement. Hon. Members ought to appreciate, of course, that the general Debate between now and, say, 7.30 p.m., would only be on Part II of the Bill, but as Part I has been talked about at length and learnedly, especially by the right hon. Gentleman since he took over the leadership last Tuesday evening, perhaps we forfeit any claims we may have for lengthy orations on the Third Reading. If it is agreed that, following the general Debate, other Amendments will be dealt with very quickly, and there is an assurance of reaching a conclusion at an early hour, then I am sure my hon. Friends will agree.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I think there is some ground of complaint on the part of those who are opposed to the Bill that we have not had an opportunity of discussing Part II at a normal time. It
is a very important part of the Bill, raising very considerable issues, and this arrangement would give us an opportunity of debating that part of the Bill earlier in our proceedings to-day, so that to that extent I associate myself with the request that has been made. I think it is fair to ask that those of us who did sit yesterday right through the proceedings, on the assumption that the Bill would be carried through in the present week in accordance with the Government's announced programme, should be able to rely now upon those who are opposed to the Bill giving the majority of the House a chance to get it through without being put to the inconvenience that kept us here until after five o'clock this morning. I think there is no reason why the suggestion now made should not be carried through without any proper arguments on the Bill being unduly abridged, and, therefore, I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the request.

3.53 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: At the end of the Amendments on the Clauses there come Amendments to the First Schedule, which has nothing to do with Part II of the Bill, and I would therefore make an earnest appeal that, as a full discussion on Part II is proposed until dinner time, those who have to move Amendments should let us have a reasonable time for discussion on the Schedule, which I regard as vital to the Bill. The Amendment to which I particularly allude, is one standing in my own name, which affords an alternative to a proposal by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) to limit the profits that can be made out of the totalisator on dog tracks. That question has not been discussed on the Floor of the House at any appropriate hour or at any length at all, and, therefore, I hope we shall be able at a reasonable hour to discuss that question fully.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I gather from conversations that there is a substantial number of Members who want to take part in the general Debate, and I imagine that the Patronage Secretary would not object to the Division upon Clause 21 rather later than 7.30 if as a consequence less time was taken on the
subsequent Amendments. The other point that I want to put is whether it would be possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to indicate what Amendments you are likely to call on Clauses 21 to 28, so that the general discussion may touch as lightly as possible on the principles raised by those Amendments.

3.55 p.m.

Captain MARGESSON: On the point raised by the hon. Member for South Croydon. (Mr. H. Williams), I think it would be better if those hon. Members who could not get into the Debate on Clause 21, say, by dinner time, should reserve their remarks until the Third Reading stage, which would be taken subsequent to the Amendments being disposed of. I make that suggestion, which I hope will be complied with, in view of what has been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). If we were to allow the general Debate to be protracted beyond 8 o'clock, there would be a chance of important Amendments on the Paper not being reached until an unduly late hour. Therefore, I hope that my suggestion that those who cannot get in before, say, 8 o'clock, should reserve their remarks to the Third Reading stage, will be found acceptable.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. SPEAKER: I take it that the House would like to know whether I am going to call Clause 21 at all. I think it is generally understood that I do not call Amendments to leave out Clauses, which obviously should have been discussed in Committee. I am always in the hands of the House in these matters, and if it appears to be for the general convenience, not that of one section of the House only, that I should make an exception in this case and call the Amendment which seeks to leave out Clause 21, I am prepared to do so, but I should not like to do so unless with some definite object, either for the saving of time or to prevent a prolongation of the Debate. If those reasons for my calling the Amendment to leave out Clause 21 are agreed upon, and it is for the general convenience of the House, I shall be pleased to call that particular Amendment. It must also be understood that the discussion on it must be confined exclusively to Part II of the Bill, not to any other Part.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: It seems to be all clear except the time at which it is proposed to take the Division on the Third Reading. Some hon. Members may feel that they want to go on talking still for a long time on the Third Reading, and it is no use making these agreements unless we are agreed that the Third Reading should be taken some time between 12 and 1 o'clock, and not later. It does not affect me, because I have made up my mind not to sit up on this Bill, and nothing would induce me to do so, but I should not agree to this proposal, to ask Mr. Speaker to make this great exception, and to allow something to be done which he says is not customary, unless we had some agreement as to the final time to which the House is expected to sit by those who are interested in the Bill. I think that is only a fair and square request to make.

3.59 p.m.

Captain MARGESSON: From the Government's point of view, we want a termination of the Debate as soon as the House is prepared to come to a vote, but in this matter it is not for the Government to make a decision. I think that, with agreement on all sides, we might say that we will aim for ten minutes to one o'clock, and then, if we run ten minutes over one o'clock, we shall expect to get a Division on the Third Reading then. If the House will agree to that, I am sure that all will work towards that end.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that, if the House sit until one o'clock, a large number of us cannot get home by train, and it means hiring a taxicab, which is a rather expensive matter?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: No one can say that we do not want to meet the accommodation of the whole House. I do most sincerely, but if we go on until one o'clock, as far as most of my friends are concerned, they might as well stay here right through the morning. I am considering the convenience of my friends, and, therefore, if we ask Mr. Speaker to take the line that he has suggested to us, I think we ought to ask the Government definitely to get the Division at a quarter-past 12 o'clock. If the House goes on until half-past 12, the trains are
all lost. The last train on the Underground is 12.24 a.m. My friends who are interested in the Bill do not mind staying if we cannot come to this agreement, because in that case they might as well stay here and enjoy the entertainment.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Would it not be just as well that the House should give the Government its Bill without any consideration, seeing that at the moment we are not considering the merits of the Bill, but trains? One thing that has not been discussed is whether the Bill is right or wrong, and now we are brought to the stage of log-rolling. We are not discussing Measures but running Parliament to suit so-and-so's convenience. I think that the work of Parliament consists of the Measures before it. I, personally, have no wish to upset any arrangements come to, but I reserve the right to discuss the Bill.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May I be permitted to point out one thing about this arrangement. It will mean a few comparatively long speeches. I am indifferent about the arrangement, but it does mean that the ordinary Report stage discussion will be eliminated. I would accept the arrangement as far as I am concerned for to-day, but I think that if the House of Commons goes on with this kind of thing, the Report stage might just as well be eliminated, and have about three Third Reading speeches.

Captain MARGESSON: In reply to the Leader of the Opposition, the Government will do their best to get the Third Reading at a quarter-past 12.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: As one who has been in opposition, and still is in opposition, to the Bill, I am not in agreement with any academic discussion about giving something which the House of Commons has no right to give without discussion. But I am in agreement so far as the Opposition is concerned. There is a tacit agreement with regard to the distressed areas, and that ought to be carried out, and if necessary this Bill should be dropped. A bargain has been arrived at with the Opposition with regard to the distressed areas, and the subject should certainly come on to-morrow. The present posi-
tion is the fault of the Government for not introducing this Bill earlier. I reserve my right to raise every objection I can to obstruct the Bill, and to see that it does not get through.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have tried to gather the general view of the House, and, if it be the wish of the House that this general arrangement should be made, we will proceed with the business.
Bill, as amended, further considered.

CLAUSE 21.—(Illegality of lotteries.)

4.5 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
This Clause, I think, is the shortest in the Bill. It says:
Subject to the provisions of this part of this Act, all lotteries are unlawful.
It will be seen that the Clause is really a most suitable one on which to raise the general principles of Part II of the Bill, because actually if the Clause were left out, of the Bill, and if at the same time were passed the Second Schedule, which, without being a lawyer, I think repeals all the existing enactments as to the illegality of lotteries, the effect would be that all lotteries would, in fact, be lawful, subject, of course, to the provisions of the remaining Clauses of Part II. Therefore, I think that I have established the proposition that Clause 21 is the most suitable for the general Debate we are now initiating. I am aware that there are a very large number of Members who would desire to take part. in this Debate, and I will endeavour to set a good example by speaking at no great length. I am one of those who, in general, like to speak often but not long in this House.
Why am I in favour of terminating the present situation that lotteries should be deemed to be unlawful I am in favour of it because I believe I am representing the point of view in this respect of the ordinary man-in-the-street. I have to-day in my peregrinations met a good number of citizens of all sorts—shop assistants, lavatory cleaners, Members of Parliament, waiters, and cloakroom attendants, and I have casually mentioned to those who knew me that we had been up all night, and when they asked me what we had been talking about, I said this Bill. In varying phrases, which I cannot repeat because they would be
unparliamentary, they expressed in very simple and direct terms what they think of us collectively in our attitude to this problem. Quite honestly, they do not believe that we are quite as sincere as we profess to be. They believe that the ordinary Member of Parliament occasionally has what they call "a bob on a horse," and buys a ticket in a sweepstake, and although they know that many dislike buying tickets in the Irish Sweepstake for political reasons, they have no objection on any moral grounds.
That is the attitude of the public. It may not be the attitude of a section of the public who do not believe in any form of gambling or betting. I am one who has never been either a bettor or a gambler in the sense of ever staking anything, which, if I lost it, was likely to make any difference. The very small stakes in which I may have indulged when playing cards, or on the very rare Occasions when I have visited horse or dog races, have been to me merely an expenditure on an amusement, and I have paid to lose and not to win. I do not approach this question from the point of view of that large number of people who are very interested in betting. I have never been, and do not want to be, for I regard betting as a regular thing to be very foolish. But I do not regard it as sinful unless carried to excess so as to bring harm to a household. There are certain people who ought not to bet because they have no restraint., and, therefore, if they indulge in it, in the long run they get into difficulties. I do not think that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), who holds a profoundly different view from me, would differ from me as to whether the attitude of the general public is that they would rather have some kind of authorised national lottery than otherwise. He thinks they ought not, because they are bad for them. I am not discussing whether they are good or bad; I am trying to discuss what I believe to be the general attitude of the public.
The Irish Hospitals' Sweepstake has been running for, I believe, five years, and it is participated in to a very large extent by the inhabitants of the United Kingdom. One can only judge the extent of that participation by the extent to which inhabitants of the United Kingdom are prize winners, but
it has been the practice of the newspapers to publish lists of winners with their addresses, and without ever having added them up, the general impression I gather from looking at those lists is that at least two-thirds of the prize winners live in the United Kingdom. The remainder are either inhabitants of the United States of America or the Irish Free State itself, with a few people living in all parts of the world. So that it is the United Kingdom which, in the main, has sustained the Irish Sweepstake. Have we up to now had any evidence that the Irish Sweepstake, to which I object on political grounds, hut not on moral grounds—

Mr. DAVID MASON: What does the hon. Member mean by "political?"

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not want to see the people of this country subsidising the Government of Mr. de Valera directly or indirectly as long as we are engaged in a fiscal dispute with them, tariffs being the weapon and the failure to pay the Irish Annuities the cause. I do not wish to assist people with whom we are engaged in a particular form of economic war. That is why I object on political grounds. But has the Irish Sweepstake caused any demoralisation to the people of the United Kingdom? Was there any evidence produced before the Royal Commission to the effect that the inhabitants of this country had been demoralised by it? I have not heard of any. I am not going to say that no person has suffered through winning a large prize. Occasionally people whose means have been very restricted may be led astray if they suddenly become possessors of what is to them, or, in fact, to anybody, a very large sum of money, but even under that heading I have not heard of any such cases of serious demoralisation. The only one which received any publicity was the case of three restaurant keepers who quarrelled about their share of the winnings. Apart from that, I have not heard of any demoralisation, and we have had five years' or so experience of great lotteries such as my hon. Friend has advocated—national in character, except that they are run by another nation.
It is abvious that they give a great deal of interest and pleasure at a very small expense to a vast number of people. I suppose that the average participant in these lotteries invests about 2s. They do
not even hold individually a single ticket, but three, four or five people buy a ticket between them, and on this very small expenditure they get a lot of amusement which gives them great satisfaction. As a matter of fact, I do not think anybody can get as much amusement for 2s. as they do by buying a ticket in a sweepstake of this character. They get an anticipatory thrill for weeks, and then when the newspapers publish the winners, they spend, perhaps, more money in buying early editions than probably they spent on the ticket. That is the extent of their demoralisation. I have known personally only one successful participant in the Irish Sweepstake, and he was a Roman Catholic priest. I read about it in the newspapers in the town where he lived, and I called to congratulate him. He is a man of the very highest standing, and obviously he did not think he was being demoralised in the slightest degree by buying a ticket in the Irish Sweepstake.
I have drawn attention to the fact that the second largest purchasers of tickets in the Irish Sweepstake appear to be inhabitants of the United States. That is of considerable significance having regard to Clause 22, on which I imagine there will be some further discussion because the Home Secretary has an Amendment down, and I do not want to discuss now what I shall want to discuss on that Amendment. I would point out, however, that, as far as I understand, the United States prohibits the publication in American newspapers of matters descriptive of the drawing of a lottery, or at least they make it illegal for newspapers to publish lists of prize winners. They have gone further than this Clause appears to go. They have definitely prohibited the importation of newspapers printed in other countries giving lists of prize winners. I understand that certain papers published in this country and in the Irish Free State have found it necessary to print special editions for exportation to the United States, where there is obviously a considerable demand for English and Irish newspapers, in order to avoid the penalty which would be imposed on them if those newspapers, as sent to the United States, contained lists of prize winners.
I emphasise this because the Home Secretary apparently thinks that by restrictions upon the activities of the Press
he will stamp out the Irish Sweepstake. Those restrictions, I understand, are now in operation in the United States, and, although that country is 3,000 miles away from the headquarters of the Irish Sweepstake, and it is obviously much more difficult for tickets to be introduced into the United States, it appears to be the second largest purchaser of tickets in that sweepstake. That leads me to believe that the provisions of Clause 22 will be far less effective than the right hon. Gentleman imagines. He must be gratified by the publication this morning in the newspaper, which, I understand, has the largest circulation, of a letter addressed to him a few days ago by the proprietor of that newspaper, Lord Rothermere, in which he expresses approval of Clause 22. Lord Rothermere is a great and powerful person. I have not the pleasure of his acquaintance, but he is obviously a man of ability and power. Otherwise he would not have reached the great position which he holds. He has expressed strong support of Clause 22, and the Home Secretary must be very gratified; but it may well be the case that, if you possess the newspaper with the largest circulation, you may be desirous that newspapers with smaller circulations should be prohibited from having that degree of publicity which will help them to increase their circulation and become comparable to your own.

Mr. BANFIELD: May I say to the hon. Member that he is altogether wrong in claiming the largest circulation for Lord Rothermere's paper. The "Daily Herald" has that.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Despite the circulation certificates published by various accountants, all of whom, I presume, fall in the classification of the First Schedule to this Bill, I have some doubts of the value of those certificates, because, if you put enough coupons of various kinds in your paper, you can have a fictitious circulation which is not a read circulation. Even if the circulation of the "Daily Mail" be not the largest, Lord Rothermere's paper is one of the largest. It has obviously a position of great influence, and, naturally, anything which will make it more difficult for new competitors to come along may quite properly have the support of the proprietor of that newspaper. I have not the slightest objection to the Noble Lord expressing
that view, but I think I am entitled to comment on the fact that it is not necessarily a view which he takes in his capacity as a legislator, but a view which he may have taken in his capacity as the principal proprietor of the "Daily Mail."
We have had considerable discussion with regard to the lotteries that will be legal—the bazaar and private lotteries—and I am one of those who are a little perturbed about the provisions, one of which is that no tickets in connection with private lotteries may be sent through the post. I do not see the slightest reason why the members of a properly conducted club or society who may not find it convenient to call at the club house or the headquarters should not be permitted to receive through the post a book of tickets sent by the secretary, provided that the club law is stiffened up in such a way that a fictitious membership is eliminated. There is not a Member of the House who has not from time to time received from perfectly proper organisations in his constituency books of tickets for charitable or other purposes. There may be a few, like the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who send them back. That is a form of economy which would be attractive to many of us, and possibly they are sent back more on grounds of economy than on grounds of morals. In any event, it does seem a fussy interference with the liberty of communication between the secretary and a member of a society, and it obviously might involve an extension of that power which the Postmaster-General has, but which we always like to see him exercise with the utmost care, of opening private correspondence. It is a power which ought to be exercised with the greatest care, and, although it is something that none of us like, we recognise that in certain matters it is a power which the State ought to possess.
Then there is the question of search. I pointed out in an earlier Debate the risks involved when the search does not arise out of a great enterprise like the Irish sweepstake, but arises out of a small enterprise in which, for some reason, an unduly fussy chief constable may be stimulated to take action and a too complacent magistrate may authorise constables to enter the private houses of people whose offence is the very minor
one of some slight infraction of the provisions of Clause 24. It might well be the case that a search warrant might be issued in connection with proceedings which, when they came before the magistrate, would be dismissed with a caution and without a conviction. I hope we shall to some extent safeguard ourselves against those risks.
Generally speaking, I take the view that whether lotteries are good or bad, they cannot be effectively prohibited. We have seen in the United States the attempt to prohibit the manufacture, transport and sale of liquor. That attempt was a complete failure. It was also something worse than a complete failure, for it created conditions infinitely more demoralising than those which prevailed before Prohibition. Although I never visited that country in the pre-Prohibition days, I understand the conditions of sale were not too good, but those conditions were better than the conditions which prevailed during Prohibition. Prohibition of something which the great mass of people feel entitled to do is bound to fail, and I am opposed to the attempt to turn into a crime something which the majority of people think they are entitled to do. The only effect will be to bring the law into disrepute. The House ought to resist legislation of that character. Therefore, what we cannot prohibit it is wise to regulate. The Home Secretary may be right in his calculations. The new power he is seeking under this Bill may enable him to destroy the effectiveness of the Irish Sweepstake. Only the future can tell, but in my judgment he will fail. Therefore, there will still be a national sweepstake being conducted by people authorised by a Government outside this country and carried on in this country illicitly, and every one taking part in it breaking the law and thinking it rather a lark to break the law. It is most undesirable that young or old people should think it a joke to break the law. Therefore, I have always held the view that we should never pass Acts which we can never effectively enforce.

4.26 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I was a Member of the Standing Committee to which this Bill was referred. I have been present at practically all the
Debates since the Bill was brought down to the Floor of the House—a procedure I have already characterised as not in the interest of Parliament. I have read the Bill and re-read it, and I have heard the Government's explanation in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House, and I have no hesitation in saying that during the 16 years that I have been a Member of this House this Bill is the worst, the most slovenly and the most demoralising Measure which I can recollect having been brought forward by any Government. I shall try not to repeat anything I said in moving the Amendment in favour of a national lottery. My principal objection to the Bill is that it is both hypocritical and dishonest and does not carry out the objects which the Government stated they had in view in introducing it. The Government stated upstairs, and they have also stated on the Floor of the House, and it was stated in another place, that, having appointed a Royal Commission to deal with the question of betting and gambling, it was necessary for them, if they had any self-respect, to implement the recommendations of that Commission. The Bill entirely fails to do so.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Entirely?

Sir W. DAVISON: I rejoice to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) agrees with what I say.

Mr. FOOT: Oh, No!

Sir W. DAVISON: I thought the hon. Member did. I have heard him say that a great many of the recommendations were not carried out. If I omit the word "entirely," I am sure he will agree that in many respects the recommendations of the Royal Commission are not dealt with in this Bill. The Commission, the Government tell us, were shocked, and most people are shocked, at the immense increase pf betting and gambling and its demoralising effect in the country. Pages of evidence were given to the Commission to this effect, and the main points which the Commission emphasised as being the principal causes of the demoralisation of the country by betting and gambling were, first, street betting, second, football pools, and, third, but to a less extent, the totalisator on greyhound racing tracks. All these forms of betting and gambling, going
on every day, week by week, throughout the year were condemned by the Royal Commission, who recommended that the Government should take immediate steps to deal with them. They also considered the question of a national lottery, but while not recommending it—they did not point to the evidence, which in no way supported them in not recommending it—they did say that it would be the least harmful of all forms of betting and gambling. The passage in their report says:
A state lottery has marked advantages over other forms of lottery. It can be conducted through the Post Office at a low administrative cost, and if at any time it were considered desirable to put an end to the lottery no large private interests would have been created.
Those are, generally speaking, the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which the Government said they had decided to implement. What has -been done? There is no mention of street betting in this Bill, although we are informed that it is one of the main causes of the demoralisation of the country in the matter of betting and gambling. As to football pools, when the Bill was first introduced it included Clauses regulating them, but the Noble Lord who introduced the Bill in another place said that the Government did not intend to proceed with that part of it. From that day to this the Government, who have been repeatedly asked for their reasons, have never told us the real underlying reason for that withdrawal.
I should not be in order in referring at any length to the totalisator, but I would say, in support of my argument that this is a dishonest Bill, that in Committee the Government could have got agreement among the Members of the Committee on the basis of having a close season for dog racing, restricting it to 111 days in the year, that is, three days a week for 37 weeks. Although they could have got that agreement, and everyone thought it would be desirable, they have not embodied it in the Bill, because they said they could not get universal agreement among the dog racing interests. What is the country coming to if we have a Government not legislating in the interests of the community but in the interests of certain sections of the community who have private interests?
On the question of a national lottery, the least harmful form of betting and gambling in the opinion of the Royal Commission, the Government fairly let themselves go. They recite all that was said in evidence before the Royal Commission as to the evils of betting and gambling, and suggest that if a national lottery were held here all those evils would be immensely increased. Surely that is dishonest. They do nothing in regard to street betting or football pools, they allow totalisator betting on 104 days a year, but say that the country would be demoralised by three national lotteries in 365 days. Really, it is playing with one's intelligence for them to say that the one thing is comparable with the other, especially when we recall that nearly every other great country in the world indulges in national lotteries—France, Italy, Germany and all the other great countries. Have they been demoralised? There is no sign of it. A lottery is a form of relaxation which the people desire, and it would raise large sums of money for things which are earnestly needed—afforestation, open spaces, cancer research and for a hundred other things which everyone regards as urgent but which the Government, when the Budget is produced, say they can find no money for—except a few hundred thousand pounds, if that. Why should we not have this additional source of revenue It is not suggested, of course, that lotteries would run the country, and I do not even suggest the raising of money for the objects I have mentioned as a reason for having State lotteries. I say the reason we should have State lotteries is that the people desire them, and no Government can maintain themselves for any length of time if they flout the will of the people. If the Government say the desires of the people are not good they must educate the people to change their desires. But as long as the people demand a thing the Government cannot say, "We know better than the people what it is good for them to have."
Not only do they forbid a state lottery hut they frame the most savage penalties, out of all proportion to the offence, penalties such as are not applicable to many of the most serious crimes. Offenders can be fined up to £750 or one year's imprisonment, or both together, for a second offence. As the Bill was introduced people were presumed to be
guilty before they were proved guilty, a thing abhorrent to British criminal law, but we forced them to take that out. In the matter of domiciliary searches we tried to get inserted the same Clause as had been put into the Incitement to Sedition Bill, but the Government resisted it, and now any person can apply to any magistrate to have anyone's house searched—if necessary, opened by force by any constable—if someone swears that the occupant has something in connection with a foreign lottery on his premises. As an hon. Friend reminds me, it might even be done in connection with a legal lottery. Then there is the muzzling of the Press. We are making children of the nation. There is something to be said for prohibiting the publication of long lists of prize winners, but I say it is absurd to pass a, Clause—we have forced the Government to alter it to some extent, though it is still not satisfactory —to say that as a matter of news a paper shall not state that on such and such a, date a procession of people went to the drawing of a lottery in Paris, or that young ladies dressed as jockeys went in procession to the Rotunda in Dublin and there, from a great drum, or a, battleship, or something else, drew the tickets in a national lottery. Why should not the people be told things like that? It is absurd. Dozens of new crimes are being created by this Measure, with its vague, indefinite Clauses, which are most difficult to understand.
The Home Secretary said that he was unaware that there was any demand for a national lottery. I gave some instances in my speech the other day, and will not repeat them, but I would remind him that he is a Member of a Government which is predominantly Conservative, that this House is overwhelmingly Conservative, that the votes cast for the return of Members now in this House were overwhelmingly Conservative, that the annual conference of Conservative Associations demand a national lottery, that women Conservatives have demanded it. I received this morning a letter stating that at a meeting of representatives of the governing body of the Association of Conservative Clubs, representing London, Lancashire, Cheshire, the East and West Midlands, the Eastern Counties, the South and West of England and the Home Counties, it was unanimously resolved that the following note should be sent to
the Lord President of the Council and every one of the 1,550 affiliated clubs:
That this meeting of the governing body of the Association of Conservative Clubs expresses its profound disappointment that the resolutions in favour of a national lottery passed at area conferences of Conservative clubmen and the annual conference of the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Asssociations have been entirely ignored by the Government.
The Leader of the Opposition asks me why I do not quote the views of trade unionists. I quoted the other day from the "Daily Herald," their official organ, which had a very large lottery, offering £20,000 for 6d., and I am entitled to tell my Conservative friends the feeling of Conservatives who send them here and whom they are supposed to represent. Although we Conservatives on this side are like voices crying in a wilderness in this House we are not crying in the wilderness in the country—very much the reverse, as hon. Members who were present at the Conference at Bristol, attended by 2,000 delegates from all over the country, would know if they heard the reception which was extended to my proposal. But in this House Conservatives are taboo. It is the Liberals who conduct this Government. It is the Liberals who force these things. The Government look across to the Whip of the Opposition and say, "Will you support us if we sit up a little late?" and the answer is "Yes, you can go on." We as Conservatives are trampled on while the Socialists and the Liberals rule the roost. I have quoted Conservative opinion in the country, and the sooner the Government take notice of the opinion of their Conservative supporters the better it will be for the Government and for the Conservative Members of it.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Was the hon. Member quoting just now the opinion of the executive committee?

Sir W. DAVISON: I quoted the opinion of the governing body of the Association of Conservative Clubs, and then I stated what happened at the annual conference of the National Union of Conservative Associations at Bristol. The resolution in favour of a State lottery had been on the agenda paper for some weeks before, and delegates came prepared to vote on it, and it was carried by acclamation with but a few dissentients. Therefore, I claim there is no question about what
Conservative opinion is, and I object that in this overwhelmingly Conservative House Conservatives who voice the opinion of the Conservative rank and file should be treated as though they were taboo and only Liberal and Socialist opinion was worth anything.
Then as to the new crimes being created. The Royal Commission say that it is most undesirable to create new crimes unless there is a very strong social reason for it. I suggest that the whole criminal law is being brought into contempt and disrepute by the creation of all sorts of crimes in restriction of the freedom of the individual and the Press in matters which no one really regards as a crime. Even so one can drive a coach-and-four through the whole Bill. People will be able to take lottery tickets in France or Ireland or anywhere else—but not a lottery ticket in our own country free and above board. All this business will be forced underground. We shall be making millions of people into criminals. Could anything be worse for the criminal law? One will say to a man "You have taken something from me, you are a thief" and he will turn round and say "You also have broken the law. You have sold an Irish lottery ticket to a friend. You are just as bad as I am." Is that desirable? Of course it is not desirable.
What are the reasons for this extraordinary attitude on the part of the Government? I am asked this question every day. They flout their supporters, pay no attention to the resolutions of Conservatives. Why are they acting in a way which infuriates electors all over the country? Do they not want to be returned to power when an election comes in a year's time? Why should they do it? Are they mad, or is it that the gods drive mad those whom they intend to destroy? I do not know, but here are some of the reasons that are suggested. It is first of all suggested that the Government, having this enormous majority, have the swollen heads of arrogance, as very often happens to dictators. When they have immense power, as the Government had last night, and when they can trample upon everybody, what do they care for a resolution of their supporters in the country? Their supporters in the country are not in the House of Commons, and the Government can snap their fingers at them. It is secondly
suggested that in the Government's great international preoccupations, their balancing of Budgets and their continual going to and from Geneva where our Foreign Secretary lives a great part of the year—I am not minimising these things—their heads are so full that they do not even consider other things. That is apparently the case. The Government do not even know what the feelings of their supporters are.
Thirdly, it is suggested that, as those who demand a national lottery are unorganised and do not start postcard campaigns or get sermons preached at Baptist chapels, churches and elsewhere, the Government need not take any notice. Fourthly—this has been suggested to me as the correct reason—I am told that this is a Coalition Government and that certain Members of it are quite willing to swallow the idea that there should be no reference in the Bill to football pools or to street betting, which do by far the most harm in the encouragement of betting and gambling, so long as they themselves can shake the mantle of rectitude and say, "We shall not be sullied by having any part or lot in a lottery of any kind. The other things may be inure injurious and may encourage betting and gambling more, but we will not be Members of a Government who have authorised a national lottery which would necessitate our seeing that it was run fairly, and of which we should have to audit the accounts." If this be indeed the true reason, as I have had it on very high authority that it is, it is weak and cowardly, and it brings the Government into disrepute. Moreover it destroys any chance of a Coalition Government continuing after the next election.
It is a dishonest reason. The Government know that a national lottery is not a cause of demoralisation, but because of their unctuous rectitude, they will not take part in something to which some of their members object and they prefer to make criminals of millions of our people. Another matter which I have had brought up to me is the dishonesty of Parliament. It is only two years ago that I introduced a Bill into this House providing for a national lottery. The Patronage Secretary and a number of Members of the present Government, together with some 176 other Conservative Members, voted for the First Reading of that Bill. The principle was the same. I explained that
the Bill was for the establishment of a national lottery. If that be an immoral object, surely the people with these white garments and the moral rectitude of their £750 fines and their imprisonment for every one Who is discovered taking part in an Irish lottery sweepstake, having gone into the Lobby to support a Bill to establish a national lottery—

Mr. ALBERY: The hon. Member must be well aware that it is customary for hon. Members to give a colleague the First Reading of his Bill.

Sir W. DAVISON: Certainly, but not if they object to the whole principle of a national lottery. I cannot imagine any person who is a self-respecting Member of Parliament voting for a Bill which he considered immoral and subversive of the public interest. Such a person is not fit to be a Member of Parliament. There is no question about it. No wonder people in the country are beginning to despise Parliament when only 49 Members the other day voted for the national lottery as against 176 who supported my Bill.

Mr. PETHERICK: Is it not usual and natural not to vote against the Bill which you have not seen, but to support the bringing in of a Bill and then to read it and make up your mind after you have read it?

Sir W. DAVISON: It is perfectly usual to vote for the First Reading of a Bill which you have not seen, if you are in general agreement with the principle, but not if you object to a national lottery of any kind. In my Amendment to this Bill I did not lay down any particular kind of national lottery, but I said the form of national lottery, to be set up could be decided by the Government of the day. Any Member who votes for a Bill to establish any kind of national lottery and yet thinks that a national lottery is immoral is not fitted to represent a constituency. To show what ridiculous humbug this is, may I say that I have had a telegram from Australia to say that a very distinguished person who is out there has been fortunate enough to draw one of the favourites in a sweepstake on the Melbourne cup. Do we think any the less of the distinguished person in Australia because he has drawn a horse in a sweep? Of course we do not, and there is not a person in the country who does. It shows what humbug it all is.
The Government have thrown over the very wise statement of the Royal Commission with regard to the creation of. crimes. This is what the Royal Commission said:
In framing legislation with these objects in view, we regard it as of the utmost importance that not more prohibitions should be made than are absolutely necessary. Every new prohibition creates a new class of potential offenders. It must, of course, always remain a matter of judgment, based on the facts of each case, whether a particular social evil is sufficiently serious to justify criminal legislation. But as a general principle the criminal law must not lightly be invoked; and the evils which result from any prohibition, however desirable the object aimed at, must be set in the balance against the evil which it is sought to diminish.
As has been found in America, the whole criminal law can be brought into disrepute through prohibition. An article on British liberty which was sent to me this week contains the following sentence which I commend to the House:
The right, and the duty, of individual men to order their own affairs, and to bear the responsibiilty for them, is being denied by Parliament.
I beg hon. Members on all sides of the House to reject this part of the Bill, which does nothing to regulate betting anti gambling, makes criminals of millions of decent members of the community, and, if passed, will undoubtedly ensure the rejection of the present Government at the next election.

Sir ALFRED BUTT: Will the hon. Gentleman say what Clause there is in the Bill' which prevents me sending 10s. to the Irish sweepstake in respect of a ticket for my personal use, and prevents the Irish sweepstake organisers sending the ticket back for my personal use?

Sir W. DAVISON: I was thinking of the next Clause to the one which we are discussing, Clause 22 (1, d), which says:
Subject to the provisions of this section, every person who in connection with any lottery promoted or proposed to be promoted either in Great Britain or else-where—
(d) brings, or invites any person to send into, Great Britain for the purpose Of sale or distribution any ticket in, or advertisement of, the lottery.

Sir A. BUTT: For the purpose of sale or distribution, but not for my own personal use.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has departed from the Chamber so quickly. I thought there was a reason why he had departed, but I understand now that he is coming back. During the past 24 hours I have heard a few adjectives used against the Home Secretary. He has been referred to as dishonest, stupid, having a swollen head, mad, a bully, arrogant, inadequate, incompetent, and a humbug, and there has been a reference to his unctuous rectitude.

Sir W. DAVISON: Oh, no, not the Home Secretary; some of his colleagues. I never said that he had unctuous rectitude.

Mr. WILLIAMS: When the adjectives were being used, I thought perhaps there was no point in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping coming into this Debate. We can compliment the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on the heat which he always generates in regard to sweepstakes. If he could only generate as much heat behind a sweeping broom he would be as good as 15,000,000 men in this House. If all that heat could be accumulated, it would keep the home fires burning for many months.

Sir W. DAVISON: It is righteous indignation.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said it was a foolish thing for the Government to do anything that would make the law of the country a mockery. He must know that the law in regard to lotteries, sweepstakes, draws and gambling has been held in contempt for a good time. He knows that the situation when the Commission was set up was so chaotic that nobody quite knew whether he was committing a legal or an illegal act.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am aware that in every street in England bookmakers are taking money from the people illegally in vast sums.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Exactly, and that is one phase of the subject about which every Member of the House knows. Ready money betting is illegal in the eyes of the law, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and only credit betting is legal, so far as
we know. The Bill tends to dissipate a good deal of doubt and to clarify the position, so far as lotteries are concerned. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) said that we should appeal to Caesar on the question of the large sweepstakes and large lotteries. To Caesar we ought to go, in order to see exactly what the conclusions were. Referring to large sweepstakes either from this country or from abroad, the Royal Commission said, in paragraph 484:
At the outset of this inquiry we approached the subject of lotteries from the point of view that present circumstances seemed to call for a considerable relaxation of the existing prohibition of large scale lotteries in this country. After close consideration of the subject we have, however, reached the conclusion that a relaxation of the existing prohibition of large lotteries is undesirable and is not called for.
The quotations of the hon. Member for South Kensington from the Royal Commission are as nought compared with their final, definite, and clearly understandable conclusion in paragraph 484.

Mr. PIKE: I do not know why the hon. Member went immediately to the second paragraph of 484, because the concluding three lines of the previous paragraph are:
We agree that a law which has broken down and lacks public support cannot be made effective merely by imposing heavier penalties.
That is entirely the case of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Yes, but the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) must he aware that the part of the paragraph which is relevant and which follows the quotation to which he has just referred is the general conclusion, and not merely a part of the review. With regard to large sweepstakes and lotteries, I said on the Second Reading Debate that I hoped that sweepstakes would not be abolished until I had won the Irish sweepstake twice. That, perhaps, was an exaggeration. Personally, I am wholly indifferent as to whether large or small sweepstakes are carried on or not, but, as a public representative, I am convinced that large sweepstakes of the kind which we have under review at the moment ought not to be encouraged in this country.
A few days ago a very intelligent public representative submitted to me
that it was folly on the part of any Government not to encourage either local or national lotteries for any purpose, whether for the purpose of hospitals or charitable institutions or of any other general re-division of spending power. This public representative happens to be a business man also. I put to him this question: If there were a lottery in the town—which has a population of some 60,000—and if 25 per cent. of the total population each invested 10s. in a ticket, there would be a sum of £7,500 available; and, if £5,000 were allocated to one prize and the other £2,500 divided up among a few individuals, what, I asked him, would be the net result in that town where he was carrying on his business? He had not examined the question at all, and the reply had to be given to him. It was that clearly one person, for 10s., would secure £5,000, and someone else, for 10s., would perhaps secure £1,000. It might be that the £5,000 received by the one individual would be invested, perhaps in South America or Timbuctoo, but one thing that is certain is that that £5,000 would not be spent over the shop counters in the town where this conversation took place, so that, in terms of trade, it would be a definite loss to the business of the town.
The same conclusion must be reached if one thinks in terms of a national lottery. If I won £30,000, the chances are that, like any other Member of this House, or anyone beyond these walls, I should take a holiday on the Riviera, or a trip round the world, or something of the kind; my money would go anywhere but over the shop counters of this country, and to that extent, apart from the question of morals, it would be a distinct national loss. I entirely agree that one can be indifferent as an individual towards the Irish Sweepstake or a national lottery, but, as a public representative, one ought at least to have a conscience—

Mr. McGOVERN: If the hon. Member buys tickets as a private individual, I think he ought to be logical and refuse to take a prize.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the hon. Member believe in keeping two consciences, a public and a private conscience?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. and learned Gentleman has been doing that all his
legal life; no one knows that better than the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. People often boast that this country, as regards its social life and standing and its general appreciation of social qualities, is far and away superior to any other country, and that ought to discourage any hon. Member of this House from quoting what happens, for instance, in France or in Italy. I have devoted the past 20 years of my life to denouncing the undeserved poverty and destitution that there is in this country; there is far too much of that for my liking; but if it be true, as hon. Members insist, that this is the best of all countries from the social or any other point of view, I do not think that anything they can import from abroad would improve the situation in that respect. Those hon. Gentlemen who support Irish sweepstakes, or French sweepstakes, or any other sweepstakes abroad, are always the loudest in their denunciation of the importation of foodstuffs from any other country.
I do not think that we ought to descend to lotteries and sweepstakes, either to abolish our National Debt, or to deal with the question of unemployment, or to make provision for social services, or to do any of those things that ought to come as a result of national effort definitely organised on a national scale, and financed by revenue provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a faulty alternative, and I am glad that the Home Secretary is not falling for it.
This lottery business is a "something for nothing" business. I can understand the hon. Member for South Croydon. who believes in a system of getting but not giving, who believes in a system of something for nothing, supporting this policy. I can understand the hon. Member for West Kensington supporting this "something for nothing" idea, because he has always supported a system which means that somebody who does nothing gets a great deal more than those who do everything. There is an element of consistency about those hon. Gentlemen, and I have no complaint to make. With regard to small lotteries, the hon. Member for South Croydon and the hon. Member for West Kensington tried to make out that the Government had sidestepped the Royal Commission in relation to lotteries. The hon. Member for
West Kensington did, of course, refer to football pools—

Sir W. DAVISON: I would point out to the hon. Member that West Kensington is not in my constituency.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: He comes from the Museum.

Sir W. DAVISON: The Museum was started by a lottery.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for South Kensington did refer to football pools and totalisators and other matters in which the Government had not been strictly consistent, but at least with regard to lotteries they have 'pursued the line laid down by the Royal Commission. I do not suggest that all Royal Commissions are perfect, that their recommendations are not vulnerable, and in this particular if anyone is vulnerable it is not so much the Home Secretary as the Royal Commission, for in paragraph 498 they say:
Very small lotteries for small prizes do no social harm, and provided the danger of fraud and nuisance can be prevented, there is a good case for removing them from the ambit of the criminal law.
The Government have, in Clause 23, removed them from the ambit of the criminal law. But these small lotteries are not "something for nothing" lotteries; they are lotteries where people have to give, and do give for the sake of giving, and not because of any colossal prize that they are likely to receive, because no prize—and the prizes may not be in cash—may exceed £10 in value. With regard to private lotteries, the Commission definitely state in paragraph 498 that they think that, if the danger of fraud can be eliminated, they ought to continue. Clause 24 of the Bill deals with private lotteries, and under it, if the members of a club, society or institution want to have a flutter exclusively among themselves, without any institution deriving any benefit, they are entitled to do that.
Having said so much in favour of the right hon. Gentleman, I may perhaps refer to the point that we advanced in Committee with regard to penalties in the case of the large sweepstake or lottery for profit-making purposes, as distinct from the private lottery which is permitted in connection with a bazaar, fete or entertainment, and the other small
lotteries. We think that there ought to have been some discrimination between the large and the small offences as regards the penalty of £100, and that this penalty should not apply in all cases, including, perhaps, cases in which there had been merely an indiscretion. We think that, until the law is again understood after the passing of this Measure, the penalties ought to have been subdivided.
There is just one other snag, to which I have already referred, and that is in Clause 26. which contains the only real contradiction in the Bill. It sets out to abolish newspaper competitions, but legalises football pools, leaving the newspaper as a medium for advertising pool betting. That is an extraordinary situation. The right hon. Gentleman stated, some time last evening, that merely to deal with football pools would not be sufficient, because there might be cricket pools, or racing pools, or other pools, and it is a question that will have to be dealt with more comprehensively that by just touching football. I should say that, if there is a hypocritical Clause in this Measure, it is Clause 26. Newspaper competitions are ruled out, but organised football pools for private gain are made legal. Whether the right hon. Gentleman merits all those epithets which have been hurled at him by his friends, I cannot say, but so far as large and small lotteries are concerned he has been fairly faithful to the Royal Commission's recommendations. With regard to football pools he has been less faithful, and we hope he will not hesitate, in the time which remains at his disposal, to recover his lost ground.

5.14 p.m.

Mrs. TATE: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a very few moments. I had no real desire to speak on this Bill, but, having been one of those who stayed here until between five and six this morning and voted in every Division against the Government, I consider that some explanation is necessary. I do not represent, like the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), a Conservative constituency; I represent a constituency very largely composed of people who have almost always voted in support of the Opposition party.
I stood as a National candidate. I stood to safeguard the credit of the country, to safeguard the rights of the people and to safeguard our industries. I did not stand to interfere with the liberties of people as to how they should spend their money. I believe the Bill is before us largely because there has been indignation in the country on account of the very large sums that go out of it in connection with the Irish sweepstakes. The Government have done nothing whatever to make a more satisfactory form of betting. I believe that there are not many Members who deplore the fact that gambling and betting are as rife as they are, and I believe that there are not very many who would not gladly support Measures which had in them some constructive value to guide the desire for betting into more desirable channels. That is exactly what the Bill has not done. Dog racing is—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I must remind the hon. Lady that at the moment we are confined to lotteries.

Mrs. TATE: Under the Bill we are allowing a form of betting to be carried on under even less desirable conditions than hitherto. One of the arguments of supporters of the Bill is that young people are at present being taught to gamble. There is nothing whatever in the Bill as it stands which will prevent one young person from gambling to his heart's content in the most undesirable manner possible. Moreover, I cannot believe that it is going to be helpful for these young people to grow up watching the parents whom they honour and respect, and whom they know to be law-abiding citizens, breaking the law, as they most certainly will when they get the chance. We know perfectly well that there is a desire for some form of relaxation in the shape of betting. Many peoples' lives to-day are very dull and dreary and drab, and a little harmless flutter in some form of sweepstake gives months of happiness in anticipation of how the money is going to be spent. They do not expect to win. They regard the money that they put into a lottery as lost, but it gives them any amount of pleasure.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) said that people who gained money in lotteries were generally very
much the worse for it, and they ought not to be allowed to win money in that way because it has a deteriorating effect on their characters. The hon. Member definitely and distinctly said that people who won large stakes in lotteries were very often the worse for it. On that basis, he will have to stop anyone inheriting money suddenly from a rich relative. I should be astonished if the hon. Member himself refused a large sum of money that was left to him on account of the possible deterioration of his character. I believe he is only following the ordinary course of his own outlook. He supports this Bill because he always supports repressive legislation of any kind. If ever he sees people enjoying themselves in a perfectly innocent way he aches to interfere.
By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something evil this way comes.
The Bill does not stop gambling. On the contrary, it sanctions the more undesirable forms of gambling. All it does is to say: "We know that gambling goes on, but it is all right as long as we pretend that we will not allow it. "You are going to make a large number of people potential criminals. I should be interested to know if hon. Members really believe it is desirable that people who have offended and taken a sweepstake ticket for the second time should go to prison with others who have committed serious crimes. Is that how we wish to see the law honoured and carried on? It does the Government little credit that we sat up till between 5 and 6 this morning and the only supporters that they could get were members of the Liberal and Socialist parties and a few Members of the Conservative party who supported them, not because they approved of the Bill, but because they knew that the only alternative to this Government is one that would wreck the country, and almost all of whom supported the Bill, believing it to be absolutely bad, out of loyalty to a Government which they consider the best that we can get at the moment. I have supported the Government, and I am a supporter of the Government, but I cannot support arrant hypocrisy such as this, utter dishonesty, pretending that we do not approve of gambling, and passing a Bill which will allow it in every conceivable form that is undesirable.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. DAVID MASON: We have heard the hon. Lady's speech with considerable pleasure and appreciation, and, though we may not agree with her, we must agree as to the skill, vehemence and good taste with which she delivered it, which commanded the admiration, if not the agreement, of the House. The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir. W. Davison) who seconded the Amendment pointed out that there are many anomalies and contradictions in the Bill and said that he himself could frame a better one. I should like to see his Bill. Just conceive of any Government which has to face a situation such as exists to-day framing a Bill in which it will not be possible for Members on either side to point out anomalies and contradictions. The Government, after all, have to take the state of affairs as exist. We know, of course, that gambling and betting exist, and what are we to do about it? The hon. Member appeals to the House, which is after all possessed of some logical method of reasoning, that because there is a certain amount of betting and sweepstakes and lotteries we should throw open the gates and go in for State lotteries and have everything. That is the logical deduction from his argument. When such a state of affairs existed in the past and State lotteries and all sorts of games of chance were the prevailing order of the day, what was the state of the country? There was a disinclination on all sides to engage in any industry whatever. Everyone, having discovered what he thought a quick method of getting rich, indulged in various schemes small and large, and the whole population was out in the morning to find out the result of the latest race or sweepstake or lottery.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the reason for that that there was no morning edition of the Press, whereas everyone now can buy a newspaper?

Mr. MASON: I appreciate the interruption, but I do not think it invalidates my argument. The hon. Member admits that the effect of such a policy, if carried, would lead to the deplorable state of affairs that existed in times past. The Amendment of the hon. Member advocating State lotteries was based on finance and helping the National Debt. It was soundly defeated, but was supported by an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. That,
to my mind, was the last straw. The hon. Member has given us lengthly discourses time and again. He has given us these arguments for the fourth, fifth or sixth time. I ask him to have mercy on us. I do not suppose for a moment that they have any effect on the Government or on the House, though they may have some in encouraging the enthusiasm of his own supporters.

Sir W. DAVISON: If the hon. Member made that speech at a specially convened gathering in the country he would see that it had not much effect there.

Viscountess ASTOR: I challenge the hon. Member to come with me and make some of his speeches on my platform.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think we shall get on better without interruptions.

Mr. MASON: I am afraid I cannot convince the hon. Member. He evidently believes that, though he cannot make any impression on the House of Commons, he has the country behind him. It is not my business to defend the Conservative party. They have here men far abler to defend them than I am. I am one of those, a Liberal, to whom the hon. Member opposite has referred as supporting the Government. I hope that I shall not be suspect for that, and that the House will believe that I am sincere. I give these views because I sincerely believe them. I believe it would be a fatal and most deplorable thing for the Government to countenance for a moment State lotteries as likely to help out our national credit or help to get rid of the National Debt. The hon. Member based his Amendment upon that fact, and he seems to forget it. He thought that he would get the support apparently of an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer in the person of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and that the Amendment would commend itself to the whole House. He chase the method of a State lottery in order to improve our national credit and to help us to get rid of our National Debt.

Sir W. DAVISON: The whole point of putting in the National Debt was in order to put in something which was quite general. The hospitals do not want it, and I put in the National Debt and Afforestation and Unemployment as things which could be helped by the
Government of the day. I repeat that this was done only by way of example.

Mr. MASON: The hon. Member runs away from the position. It is no use telling us, when we know the main basis of the Amendment, that that was not the reason he put it in the Amendment and appealed to the House. If he disclaims that, then for what purpose should a State lottery be held? He became very pathetic when he spoke of the pleasure that might be given to a poor creature leading a monotonous life when he discovered that he had either won or lost in some lottery or game of chance. There may be something to be said for his sympathy with people who either win or lose in games of chance, but it is not a serious argument to submit to the Government and the House of Commons in asking them to support a State lottery. He instanced other countries, and spoke of France and Germany. But what is the condition of the credit of those countries compared with the credit of this country? Does the hon. Member know that the 7 per cent. German Dawes Loan can be picked up in the City of London at 60, whereas 2½ per cent. Consols are approaching par? Does he suggest that the credit of France or any other country is better than that of this country?
The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who moved the omission of the Clause, knows something of finance, and I have collaborated with the hon. Member on certain subjects dealing with sound finance. I would ask him if he were now present whether he did not think that a State lottery would be a most fatal thing in which to engage and would have a most deterrent effect upon the national credit of this country. Why should we indulge in this sort of thing if it is bad for our credit? I appeal to the common sense of hon. Members. Am I not right in saying that our credit compares favourably with that of any other country, and that if we were engaged in State lotteries for the purpose of reducing the National Debt it would have a serious effect in reducing our credit?
I have already referred to the question of the amusement part of the argument. Fancy the House of Commons being asked to sanction State lotteries in order to provide entertainment and amusement
for our people. There are many means of entertainment, and I do not think that we as a responsible body should be asked to spend hour after hour discussing State lotteries as a means of entertainment for the people of this country. I have listened to speeches made in support of them. I have already expressed sympathy with regard to the hon. Lady the Member for West Willesden (Mrs. Tate). She complained of hypocrisy and of the fact that you cannot reconcile one part of the Bill with another. I would say to her with all respect, as a Member who first entered this House about 25 years ago, that there are very few Bills introduced into this House in which you can reconcile one part with another. It is the history of the British Constitution and of all legislation that you cannot produce a perfect Bill. If the hon. Lady can do it, I wish her well. If she can produce a Bill which is watertight and perfect from the first Clause to the last, I shall be glad to listen to her, and, if possible, to welcome her Bill, but I would advise her that before she accuses this Government or any Government of hypocrisy she should have some regard to history. We must have regard to the state of affairs in the country to-day and to the fact that the Government—and I have attacked the present Government, in collaboration with hon. Members above the Gangway, on more occasions than any other hon. Member on this bench—are making a sincere attempt to face the situation as it exists to-day. No case has been made out for the suggestion that the Bill should be withdrawn and that State lotteries should be encouraged.

Mrs. TATE: If the hon. Member considers that it is a perfectly sincere attempt to deal with the present situation, how does he account for the fact that one of the things which the Royal Commission most condemned—the football pools—are left in this Bill?

Mr. MASON: I agree that there are points of criticism. I do not deny that there are many subjects which ought to have been left out of the Bill and many which ought to htve been put into it. I decline to support the suggestion, after we have already been over the ground, that there has been any case made out for State lotteries, that we should again
spend our time arguing the matter. I hope that the Government will adhere to the decision which they originally took up.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. GROVES: I desire to put a few points to the Home Secretary. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) made some reference to the Bill being an attempt to deal with the situation as it at present exists. My remarks will not be directed towards the attempt to obtain a national lottery, but to the fact that in the Schedule there are certain recommendations to repeal certain Acts which have proved inimical to the general well-being. The Clause which it is sought to omit deals with lotteries and prize competitions, and I wish to call attention to the hardships which are imposed in this country by the application of Acts upon a large number of men and women engaged in the amusement and showman's business. On Friday, the Home Secretary listened very patiently to their point of view, and we understood that it was not easy for him at that moment, and may not be to-night, to give a reply which would satisfy them. I feel it to be my duty to add a few words to what I said on Friday, and to read to him a notice which was issued by the Chief Constable of Southport and circulated to people engaged in this particular trade. The notice, which was issued from the Chief Constable's office, Southport, on 11th September this year, reads as follows:
It has been reported to me that you keep a place at Pleasureland for the purposes of betting, and that persons resorting thereto bet on a game (or games) shown on the attached list, being a game (or games) in which the successful player receives money or a valuable thing in an event or contingency. I hereby give you notice that should you keep any such place within this county borough of Southport for such purpose on or after the 15th day of September, 1934, I shall take proceedings against you.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Will the hon. Gentleman read from the attached list the type of innocent amusements which are prohibited in Southport?

Mr. GROVES: I feel sure that the bulk of the Members of the House will be surprised to learn that that action was taken against people who were winning prizes at coconut shies, for taking "a penalty kick," and for playing darts for prizes.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was rather loth to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am very doubtful whether any of these things of which he is complaining come under the definition of the word "lottery" and under Acts included in the Second Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. GROVES: If they were not taboo they would be legal, and therefore the Chief Constable of Southport would not be able to take action.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is undoubtedly the case, but the question before the House is whether these things are lotteries. If they are illegal under any other Section of the various Acts and Statutes, it will be out of order to discuss them on this occasion.

Mr. GROVES: I beg respectfully to submit that they come under the category of prize competitions and are therefore affected by Clause 21, and furthermore the question is referred to in Clause 26, because it there says:
It shall be unlawful to conduct in or through any newspaper, or in connection with any trade or business or the sale of any article to the public—

(a) any competition in which prizes are offered for forecasts…..
(b) any other competition success in which does not depend to a substantial degree upon the exercise of skill."

The submission I made to the Home Office on the Committee stage was that it was very hard for the Chair to decide what degree of skill was required even to remove a coconut, or to win at darts or the small and innocent amusements we see up and down the country to-day. I do not think we in this House in the year 1934 desire to take up a stand that those amusements and fairs are disorderly, and it is because of the hardship imposed on the men and women engaged in the business that I make an appeal to the House. Probably the Solicitor-General may be able to assist me. I am not making this plea in any carping way. The Chief Constables of the country find it difficult to interpret the existing law, and they will find it equally difficult to interpret the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. This would be a very easy solution. I do not say that it could be incorporated in the Bill now, but I should be obliged if the Home Secretary would
direct his remarks to the few points that I have put, and so arrange to cover
any game which means a game or competition at or in which any player or competitor should in any event win any money, or article or thing from any other player or competitor, or any money, article or thing, other than the prize from the persons conducting such game or competition.
Further, every competitor should be present at what is called in the Bill a prize competition under Clause 20. My submission to the Home Secretary is that all the cases that I am indicating are circumstances in which every competitor must be present. There is no money prize. People cannot enter by proxy. There can be no profit except to those immediately present. This Bill imposes upon these people, under the penalties of the Bill, hardships which we pointed out during the Committee stage are unwarranted and which I felt that the Home Secretary and his advisers did not desire to impose. Therefore, I would suggest to him that he should give us some light as to what we may do in future, in order that these innocent games and amusements which have prevailed in this country for centuries shall not continue to be harassed by constables, who do not desire unfairly to interpret the law, but who want a clear lead from the Home Secretary and his advisers. If the hon. Gentleman does that he will be pleasing not only me but my friends, and will be providing some assistance for a class of men and women who do not desire to break the law or to contravene the provisions of this Bill, which if passed will impose on a very respectable and orderly portion of the community, hardships which they certainly cannot bear.

5.48 p.m.

Sir A. BUTT: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Willesden West (Mrs. Tate) is not in her place, because I should have liked to have told her that I am not a Liberal, that I am not a Socialist and that I am not a goody-goody, and that in spite of those facts I am from time to time voting with the Government with the rather hopeless desire to improve the Bill. I hope that I shall have an opportunity on Third Reading for criticising the Bill in general. I gather that we are now dealing only with Part II. I rise to deal with the speeches of the mover and seconder of the Amendment before the
House. Their speeches can be divided into two parts, first, their desire that we should have national lotteries and, secondly, their criticism of the apprehension in regard to the Irish Sweepstake. With regard to the demand for a national lottery, I think it is clear from the evidence of other countries, although it may be a coincidence, that in almost every case where countries indulge in national lotteries their prestige and financial stability are very much below those enjoyed in this country. It is curious that the original suggestion to have a national lottery was refused by the hospitals themselves. We are now told that the proceeds of the national lottery should be devoted to cancer research and other very admirable objects. If sums were provided in that way I think that people would lose the habit of giving, and of giving voluntarily, to desirable charities. It is one of the proud boasts of the Britisher that he is allowed to give to the relief of those less fortunate than himself.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I did not propose that as an object.

Sir A. BUTT: I agree that the hon. Member did not propose it, but that was the object put forward by the seconder of the Amendment. On looking at the experience of other countries one finds that if they have national lotteries, whenever the Government want to impose additional taxation their nationals say: "No. We do not want to see any additional taxation. Let us have a lottery." Therefore, the demand for a national lottery is undesirable.
Coming to the question of the Irish Sweepstake, I agree profoundly with everything that the mover of the Amendment said in regard to the comparatively harmless habit—it certainly has become a very general habit—of the people in this country to take a ticket in that sweepstake. I take one myself. I never expect to win a prize, but I always look at the newspapers for the results, to see that if by any good chance I have succeeded. If I did succeed I do not think that it would very much deteriorate my moral character. I look upon the Irish Sweepstake as giving a lot of innocent pleasure to people throughout the country who are not in the habit of gambling, either individually or
collectively, but who take a ticket. If they lose, and obviously a very large majority must lose, it has not done them any great harm, and they have had their modest little flutter. I should have been extremely sorry if the Home Secretary had prohibited an individual from taking tickets in the Irish Sweepstake. Perhaps he is right to tighten up the machinery so that these tickets cannot be offered to people and people be persuaded to buy them. If a person wants a ticket he can take means to obtain it. What I was anxious to point out to the House, and what I have pointed out in all humility to my constituents, is that there is nothing in this Bill to prevent an individual person from taking a ticket in an Irish Sweepstake.

Mr. PIKE: There is. No. one is allowed to sell.

Sir A. BUTT: With that I agree. Is it desirable that people should go around factories trying to persuade people to take tickets? If a person is sufficiently interested he can get a ticket. So far as I can see, there is nothing to prevent me writing to the authorities in Ireland, enclosing 10s. and saying: "I want a ticket in the Irish sweep." The Irish people can send me a ticket and as long as I keep it for my individual use and do not attempt to sell it, in part or whole, to anyone else, I am not committing any offence under this Bill. If I am wrong, I hope the Home Secretary will correct me, and if I am right I hope that he will emphasise what I am saying so that there will be no misapprehension in the country. In that case, I hope that we shall hear nothing more about the hardship of preventing people taking a ticket in the Irish sweep, if they so desire.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: I am very glad that I have been given the opportunity of immediately following the hon. Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt). His last words were that he hoped that we were not going to hear any more on this subject. I hope that we are.

Sir A. BUTT: I said that I hoped we were not going to hear any more misapprehension or any more misrepresentation on the subject.

Mr. PIKE: I hope that we are going to hear something very substantial about
it, because not simply hundreds of thousands but millions of people in this country are very anxious to know whether or not it will be a crime under this Bill to obtain, by whatever means in their power, one or two tickets for their own personal use in the Irish sweepstake to be held next March on the result of the Grand National race at Aintree. It is a very important point, and I hope the Home Secretary will give the House a definite answer on it. So far as I read the Bill, it is absolutely impossible, under Clause 22 (b) even to possess a ticket in the Irish sweepstake, unless you can prove that you neither brought it in nor invited any person to send it into Great Britain for the purpose of sale or distribution. If that is so, then it is illegal to hold tickets in the Irish sweepstake, whether you hold one, a dozen or 100.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The Clause says
brings, or invites any person to send into, Great Britain for the purpose of sale or distribution.
Does that mean that the person who has received the ticket is not to sell it?

Sir A. BUTT: Not to sell it or distribute it.

Mr. J. JONES: What is he to do with it

Sir A. BUTT: Keep it for himself.

Mr. PIKE: The hon. and learned Member has not read paragraph (e) of Clause 22:
sends or attempts to send out of Great Britain any money or valuable thing received in respect of the sale or distribution.
Let us suppose that a kindly disposed friend says to me: "I cannot sell you this ticket in the Irish Sweepstake, but as long as you will send 10s. to the Hospitals Sweepstakes, Ltd., in Southern Ireland as an acknowledgment for the ticket that you have received from me, you can be the holder of it." The Bill prevents me from sending the money, although it does not prevent me from receiving the ticket. That shows that there is a great deal of misunderstanding on this point. I do not believe that there is an hon. Member competent to answer the question. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is competent to answer it, if not, I hope that he will introduce at the earliest possible opportunity the
highest legal authority, in order that the people of this country may know where they stand. It is a very important issue.
May I refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams)? He referred to the report of the Royal Commission and quoted paragraph 484 as the opinion of the Royal Commission on the question of lotteries. I am convinced that the Royal Comission came to no definite conclusion on the question of lotteries. There are certain conclusions but the more one reads them the more one becomes perplexed as to their meaning. Take paragraph 485:
In the first place, so far as we are aware there is no evidence of any sustained demand in this country for tickets in large public lotteries.
It immediately leaves it there and goes into a lot of detail about State lotteries brought to an end in 1826, over 100 years ago, and on that basis attempts to justify the first paragraph. I contend that more than ever in the history of this country there is definite evidence that there is a sustained demand for tickets in a lottery. I do not say that there is a sustained demand for a national or State lottery, but I do say that the receipts in respect of lotteries, whether organised at home or abroad, prove conclusively that there is a sustained demand for tickets in lotteries. Two years ago there was a rumour that the Government were going to stop anybody buying tickets in the Irish Sweepstakes, and the automatic result was that the receipts from this country fell considerably, but the moment the people realised that no such action was contemplated, the receipts automatically rose, and last year there was a record in the amount of money received by Dublin Hospitals Sweepstakes, Ltd., from the United Kingdom for tickets. There is no evidence to-day, in spite of what the Royal Commission says, that there is no sustained demand in this country for tickets in large public lotteries. Give the working man a chance to enjoy a chance in the Irish Sweepstakes, free from any possibility of being apprehended by the police or some other Nosey Parker, and you will find that there is a sustained, indeed a growing, demand to participate in these innocent affairs.
The Commission on another point misrepresented the position and misled the right hon. Gentleman. They knew
that he was going to do something about their report; he has said so, and his actions and the proposals of the Government have proved conclusively that they did intend to do something, although they did not tell us what. But the Commission misled the right hon. Gentleman. At the end of paragraph 485 there are the words:
The vogue of the Irish sweepstake has been fostered by specially favourable circumstances, and recent figures seem to indicate that its popularity, so far as concerns this country, may already have begun to decline.
Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not true. The more the industrial policy of the Government succeeds in placing more men in permanent employment, giving them a regular income, the more we shall see the figure of tickets purchased by Britishers in the Irish sweepstake increased. If the right hon. Gentleman has gone on the evidence of the Commission on this point, he has made a gross mistake. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions which have already been riot to him on this matter. I want to know what is the position of a person in this country who has in his possession any holding in a lottery for the purposes of sale. Who is going to decide what is meant by—
the purpose of sale.
Who is actually going to lay down the rule which will define the "purpose of sale"? The Bill does not. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that it was obvious that a man who had thousands of tickets was nothing but a distributive agent, and that the tickets were in his possession for the purpose of sale. That is obvious; but the Bill does not say so. At the moment the Bill places everybody in a rather unfortunate predicament. Anybody can be apprehended for having in his possession a ticket or a chance in a lottery, and is to be responsible for proving that the ticket is not for the purpose of sale or distribution. That is interfering with individual and personal liberty beyond anything which anyone could have imagined coming from the present Government. I want to know what is a chance. The word "hance" is often referred to in the Bill, but there must be some peculiar association unknown to some of us in regard to this word. If my friend in
Southern Ireland writes to me and says: "Dear Pike, re the Christmas pudding which I sent to you last Thursday. There are 24 currants in the top end, two currants on either side, and 20 currants on the bottom." Who is to say that that is not a chance? Who is going to say that there does not exist in that letter an intimation to me that I possess a chance in a lottery?
What is a chance? We want to know. I desire to enforce this point because it is important, and we shall have to ask the Home Secretary for an answer if it keeps him up until 20 minutes past seven in the morning. If I purchase a ticket in a sweepstake am I purchasing a chance If I buy a ticket in the Irish Sweepstake, have I bought a chance? Does it constitute a chance within the meaning of the Bill? Is it intended to mean that any person purchasing a ticket is purchasing a chance, and, therefore is guilty of a contravention of the Bill? How much longer have we to appeal to the Home Secretary for a complete definition of what the Bill does? I have asked many questions and I shall still have to ask them. Am I to ask in vain? Have I got the chance of an answer?
Let me go a little further. The Bill deals with the question of publication. There is the phrase:
or prints, publishes, or distributes, or has in his possession for the purpose of publication or distribution, any advertisement of the lottery or any matter descriptive of the drawing or intended drawing of the lottery.
I want to know exactly what that means. I put myself in the position of an ordinary Press reporter. My departmental manager, in other words the chief reporter, sends me to report details of a certain meeting convened in Soho, the details of which I learn when I get there. The meeting is for the purpose of organising the sale or distribution of lottery tickets, which constitute a contravention of the Bill. The chairman is a kind man, he gives me a little credit for intelligence—

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!

Mr. PIKE: That is more than the Noble Lady gives to anybody but herself. He gives me a little credit for intelligence and hands me a copy of the agenda of the meeting. I make a few notes for the purpose of performing my
function to my departmental manager. On my way back to the office I am apprehended by a policeman. He takes from me the agenda of the meeting which deals with a matter which is a contravention of the Bill, and also takes from me my own conception of the agenda which I propose to suggest should be published as a special piece of news in respect of the meeting. Am I guilty of a contravention of the Bill because I have in my possession for the purpose of publication and distribution matters appertaining to the advertisement of the lottery? Will that be a piece of news or a contravention of the Bill? I want to know whether I, a poor humble reporter, a pawn in the hands of my principal, am to be considered the guilty party or whether the person who sent me there will be considered to be the guilty person? These are questions which the public will ask and to which they are entitled to an answer.
I go a little further. We asked the other night what was the position of advertisements over the air in respect of lotteries. What has the right hon. Gentleman done about it? I have looked through all his Amendments, and I can find nothing. Is it to be a crime to broadcast from Luxemburg the details of any foreign lottery which will save any London or provincial papers publishing the details? We asked a question the other night and pressed for an answer. The right hon. Gentleman said he would give reconsideration to it. I have looked anxiously through the Amendments for this reconsideration, but it is not there. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that by this pernicious attempt to suppress the Press of this country in these matters he is going to suppress the distribution of news or of advertisements relating to a lottery or sweepstake? He knows that every Sunday afternoon at two o'clock you have only to press a button and every person who desires the information will get it, and it is possible that the information will be distributed to British listeners through the mouthpiece of a notability of this country. What is the Home Secretary going to do against these people who by such devious routes will violate the Bill, which he proposes to make applicable to every respectable newspaper and newsvendor in this country? These are important questions, whether
the Home Office thinks they are important or not.
Hon. Members opposite, like Members of the Conservative party, know the value of broadcasting. We knew it at the last General Election. The Labour party have known it since, and to such an extent that when they have been invited they have always taken advantage of the invitation. If advertisement over the broadcast is worth while for political purposes, it is obviously one of the finest advertising media for any business proposition. I want to have an answer as to the reconsideration of this matter which the right hon. Gentleman promised us on Thursday last. Does Sub-section (1, b) of Clause 22 cover the right hon. Gentleman in respect of anyone attempting to broadcast these advertisements by wireless?
There is another point. The right hon. Gentleman is introducing a lottery in Part I of this Bill, for, whatever we may think, a bet on a tote is just as big a chance and just as big a share in a lottery as the purchase of a ticket in the Irish Free State Sweepstake. We never know what the price is going to be until the 6 per cent. rake-off has been taken. What is the difference between the two things? The question of what shall be the price is just as much a lottery. What is good enough for Part I of the Bill should surely be good enough for Part II. I do not see any difference between them in so far as they are to affect the morals of the people. Sub-section (2, a) of Clause 23 contains these words:
(2) The conditions referred to in the preceding Sub-section are that—
(a) the whole proceeds of the entertainment (including the proceeds of the lottery) after deducting the expenses of the entertainment, excluding all expenses incurred in connection with the lottery other than expenses incurred in printing tickets, shall be devoted to purposes other than private gain.
I notice that the Home Secretary has on the Paper an Amendment to this Clause, in page 22, line 30, to leave out from "deducting," to "shall," in line 33, and to insert—

(i) the expenses of the entertainment, excluding expenses incurred in connection with the lottery; and
(ii) the expenses incurred in printing tickets in the lottery; and
(iii) such sum (if any) not exceeding ten pounds as the promoters of the lottery think
1827
fit to appropriate on account of any expense incurred by them in purchasing prizes in the lottery.

The condition is that none of the money arising from such a lottery is for private gain. I would ask a question in regard to Conservative clubs. They are largely owned by limited companies. Any hon. Member can see in his division notices such as "— Conservative Club, Limited." What does that mean? It means that the directors of that club are definitely and directly financially interested in the welfare of the club in so far as they have special share capital holdings. If a lottery is organised under Clause 23 for any club of that kind, I want to know whether the profits that would accrue from that lottery are to be allowed to go into the pockets of the directors of that club as shareholders. Suppose that the lottery is organised for the benefit of the club and the club represents their capital holdings, under the Bill the profits must go into the pockets of those private holders. We cannot have it both ways. The Bill has either to say that the private holders of capital in clubs shall not be entitled to take the proceeds of a lottery or that they shall be entitled. I want to know which way the Home Secretary is going to decide.
Many other hon. Members want to speak and I shall not detain the House much longer. In support of my long speech I must say that I have sat here practically every minute that the Bill has been before the House. There were 10 sittings of the Committee upstairs and there have been the sittings here. I do not believe I have missed more than 10 minutes, when I have snatched a little refreshment. There is another Clause which is going to be very difficult to work. Clause 24 says it will not be illegal to post or exhibit notices relating to a lottery on the premises or in the institution for which that sweep or lottery is organised. Any Member of that institution or organisation can be a shareholder in that lottery. A trade union is a very big organisation. Suppose it is a bricklayer's union and that his branch is in Balham, and it is discovered that there is no way of informing him that there is a sweep going on in his branch at Balham other than by sending notice of the sweep by advertis-
ing it on a building in Glasgow upon which he is laying bricks. Would it be illegal for that notice to be posted in Glasgow? My interpretation has not gone too far. There are so many weaknesses in this Bill that we ask the Home Secretary to be so kind as to give us to-night this information, not for our own sakes but in order that clarity of view may be the possession of the whole of the community as to the effects of the Bill when it is in operation.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I shall not speak long, for I know that many want to take part in the Debate, and in the hope that I may have a chance later on the Third Reading for saying something on the general aspect of the Bill, I propose to confine myself now to the question of lotteries. I said last week, when talking upon this subject, that we were dealing with an old matter. Let me quote what was said by a very famous author who certainly was not a kill-joy, as the hon. Lady who spoke just now would infer that all the opponents of lotteries are. This is what was written by Henry Fielding, who spoke with some experience:
A lottery is a taxation,
Upon all the fools in creation
And, Heaven be praised!
It is easily raised.
Credulity's always in fashion,
For Folly's a Fund,
Will never lose ground,
While fools are so rife in the nation.
I do not give that as my opinion. It is remarkable that that should have been written by one of the most prominent of our writers, who knew from personal experience just what lotteries were in his time. When the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) spoke upon this subject at Bristol his resolution was carried. That is understandable, for when he speaks in this House he generally carries me with him. I can understand that his resolution was very easily carried, but I do not think he would suggest that we should be influenced by the vote of an outside association. He said in the course of his remarks that at the last election the people of this country voted overwhelmingly for Conservatives. That was probably true. But a lot of Liberals took part in those votes that returned Conservatives to this House, and I can assure the hon. Member that there
might have been a somewhat different result if as part of the appeal of the Government it had been made clear that one of the first things they intended to do when in power was to establish State lotteries in this country. A great many votes that were given by Liberals on that occasion might not then have gone in the same direction.
The hon. Member repeated what has been said by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), that we Liberals have some special responsibility in relation to this Bill. We have been accused all along. It was suggested last night that we were delighting in the possible ruin of the Government over this Measure, that we were always designing this attack upon the Government. There are others who say that we are virtually the authors of the Bill, and to-day the hon. Member said that we were conducting the Government. Of course, as a small party we have to put up with these gibes. Sufferance is the badge of all our tribe. There is not the slightest ground for these suggestions. Our position was made as clear as possible on the Second Reading of the Bill. It was that this was not our Bill, that we did not like many parts of it, and that if we had been responsible for its introduction it would have been in another form, but that in so far as it did carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission it deserved and would get our support. That promise we have faithfully kept. By our close attention to the Debates and by our votes we have carried out what was our plain declaration on a Bill that apparently carried so much support en Second Reading that no one went into the Lobby against it.
The hon. Member repeated to-day an argument that he used the other night, and I do not want to repeat the answer. But I would call attention to what the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has mentioned, that the Members of the Royal Commission have told us in terms that they approached this question of lotteries almost with the intention of advising some alterations in the law. It is very remarkable that they should say so. They were not content to make their recommendations, not content to make their comment on lotteries; but they told the Members of the House that virtually they had changed their minds
as a result of the investigations that they had made. Upon this Amendment no one ought to cast a vote unless lie has read very carefully the comment that the Commissioners make upon the danger of lotteries. As far as demand is concerned, the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) says that as a result of the experience with the Irish Sweepstsake there is all the evidence of demand. The demand, we suggest, has been provoked. Very often a demand does not exist until it is provoked.
Does anyone suggest that, 10 years ago, before the Irish Sweepstake authorities started upon this policy, there was a. demand in this country, that the people of this country were dissatisfied because of a demand that could not be gratified? The demand has grown because the conditions have been created, because allurements have been put out and those allurements have been put out by those who want to get financial advantages. Even that scheme would have no prospect of success. were it not for the immense sums which go in expenses and in the collection of subscribers throughout the country. Everyone knows that in association even with that sweepstake, there are all the possibilities of considerable fraud. It is the old danger that we have met in this country before. I know that I am speaking for a minority upon this matter in this House. I take this side because I think the State has no right to give its imprimatur to something to which a large part of the people take serious objection.

Sir W. DAVION: A small part.

Mr. FOOT: The hon. Member knows very little of my local circumstances. He has generously suggested that I am angry when I see anyone interested in sport of any kind—a remark which, I may say in passing, is just nonsense. Any person acquainted with the circumstances of the neighbourhood in which I live will know that I am very much interested in the sport of the people. I love to see the people taking a full share in wholesome sport, and one reason why I am against this evil is because, on the authority of those responsible for the organisation of sport in this country, it is an evil which poisons every sport it touches.

Mrs. TATE: And the Bill leaves it worse than it was before.

Mr. FOOT: The suggestion that if I saw people interested in sport I felt bound to interfere with them shows the depths to which people have to resort in trying to attack those who are supporting this Measure. Leaving that matter on one side, however, I suggest that there are many in this country who regard this as a growing evil. We may be wrong, but there are many of us. We are not as vocal as the vested interests but the Home Secretary knows that throughout this controversy there have been behind him great forces in this country representing the churches. They, after all, have some right to speak. They have watched this matter closely and have made their representations openly in one of the Committee rooms upstairs when every Member had the opportunity of hearing what they had to say. Whether you agree with them or not, they represent a large part of the life of the people and they regard this, as all who have gone into the question regard it, as a grave and growing social menace.
If as a result of Government action, you did establish a State lottery, I say you would have garbed that evil in the livery of the State and it is to that proposal that we take objection. If you propose to take that course it should only be done after you have consulted the people upon it. No one can suggest that at the time of the national crisis in August and September, 1931, the slightest hint or mention was made of any possibility of that kind. We are assumed in this House to be wrong but, as I say, we represent very many outside. If the Government in this matter, yielding to the appeals which have been made to them, took a step which for the first time in a hundred years gave the nation's imprimatur to schemes of this kind and gave them the dignity of national sanction, the indignation that would be expressed would surprise Members of the House who think that they only are entitled to speak for the people of the country. There are many in the constituency of the hon. Member opposite who would agree with my view and not with his. Indeed there is no constituency where he will not find those who would accept my view rather than his and you have no right to override their desire.

Sir W. DAVISON: I never suggested over-riding the hon. Member or his
friends. What I said was that a national lottery was open to none of the objections which he urged about exploitation for private gain. Neither he nor any of his friends would be compelled to take tickets in such a lottery if they did not want to do so. Those who wanted to do so would be able to take tickets. We respect the hon. Member's opinions.

Mr. FOOT: I return to my argument. I say that there are many in the hon. Member's constituency associated with the best life in his constituency, and with the most wholesome movements in his constituency, who would regard it as intolerable if a majority, secured as the result of the financial crisis, were to be used to undo in part what has been established for 100 years. They would regard it as intolerable if that majority were used to give national sanction to what they regard as an evil which ought not to be sanctioned but ought to be fought, in the interests not of a few here and there but in the interests of many in this land—an evil that ought to be redressed as far as it can be redressed. I do not want to be dragged into a discussion here on the general question of liberty. That can probably be discussed at a later stage. I take the broad issue suggested by the hon. Member opposite, and I say that the Government in this matter are interpreting the wish of what I regard as the best part of the life of the nation. Whether it is the majority or not I cannot say, but 'it is a large part of the life of the nation. So far from limiting the evil, national sanction would tend to extend it, and I shall stand in this House in favour not of extending it, hut, as far as possible, limiting it.

6.37 p. m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We are fortunate that through the flexible procedure of the House of Commons and through the interpretation which you, Sir, and the House have given to our Rules, it has been found possible upon this occasion to secure a Debate upon the issues raised in a vital portion of this Bill, and to secure that Debate during the afternoon, when it can be followed by the country. That, I think, is very satisfactory. We shall, I trust, have as long as possible, up to the time when we hope to be able to dispose of the remaining Amendments before we devote ourselves to the renewal of general discussion upon the Third Reading. In the course of this
Debate not the least interesting feature has been the chastened attitude of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). Only a few days ago he was here as a tyrant. Now he is apologising, I will not say for his existence, but for his general attitude, and is most anxious to persuade us that really he is no killjoy or spoil-sport.
It very often happens that a man who, in his public life, adopts the most sour and stern and drab principles and colours, at home or in private circles is an unfailing fountain of gaiety and good fellowship, and that I have no doubt is the case with the hon. Gentleman, once he feels that he has discharged his public duty of making himself as disagreeable to his fellow mortals as he possibly can. I think I noticed that some of the criticisms which have been levelled at him from this side had made an impression upon the hon. Gentleman's inner consciousness, and I do not think that he will ever again feel entitled to speak with the same freedom and confidence in the cause of liberty after the impression which undoubtedly has been established of the truth of his position, namely, that he is in favour of everyone having the opportunity to do anything of which he does not disapprove.
The Home Secretary had also emerged from this controversy with a mingled record. Certainly, I cannot retract any of the criticisms which I have made about the manner in which he has used the force of his majority and the exigencies of time to drive this Measure through the House. Also I must say that there is so much trick work in the articulation of this Bill that it is difficult to reconcile it with the candid open character of the right hon. Gentleman. The way in which one part of the Bill has been dealt with by a different procedure from other parts, the way in which the time factor has been made to work to procure decisions before they have been given that discussion which the House would like to give them, and the way in which this suggestion, the very reasonable suggestion, of an anti-Irish problem has been made to serve the cause of anti-gambling—all this argues an amount of finesse and calculation which one hoped were foreign to the character of a Minister whose simplicity and uprightness have always endeared him to the House, and especially to those
who know him best. But I will say that the good temper shown by the Government and their supporters in these long Debates has been quite exceptional in my experience of the House on these occasions. I trust that it will continue as long as we have to enter into clashes upon these proposals.
Let us see what is the main criticism that can be levelled at Clause 21 and Part II of the Bill? It seems to me that the Government had two courses regular anti-gambling Bill and courageo open to them. One was to introduce a regular anti-gambling Bill and courageously to face the unpopularity which would attach to it, to attack as boldly as they possibly could—we know that there are lengths to which one could not go—all the evils of gambling and particularly the worst and most injurious forms which gambling takes. If they had done that, they would have established a moral case to come forward and say, "We must carry out Part II otherwise we should stultify the dignity, the consistency, the integrity of the work we have already done." They would have been able to say "It is true that we are going to make new crimes, to put men in prison, to inflict heavy fines, and to impose many restrictions otn liberty, but we are doing so from motives of high conscientious conviction. Our loathing and detestation of the crime and the vice of gambling, our deep realisation of the miseries and ruin which it causes in so many homes have hardened our hearts, and just as we are feeling these strong, poignant emotions ourselves, so we are entitled to lay the lash upon the shoulders of the delinquents who fail to conform to our standards." But nothing of that kind is open to my right hon. Friend to-night.
He had that course and he had another course which was, frankly, to recognise that there are many features of gambling and betting which have grown up in the life of the nation and which no Government and no series of Governments will be able to eradicate. These have taken new forms and have acquired vested interests and voting strength, and they cannot be dealt with, and nobody wishes them to be dealt with, in a rough and ruthless manner. But if the Home Secretary accepts that view as the view which animated him in Part I, then certainly
he has no right to come forward and to take this highly austere and would-be imposing attitude of superiority, of moral rectitude or correctitude, and to say that anyone who ever held responsible office in this country could associate himself with the idea of a public lottery being allowed in this land, passed his comprehension. Any crimes which can be laid to my charge in that matter are the most innocent peccadilloes compared with the mass of shocking faults and abuses of which the right hon. Gentleman has made himself the perpetrator.
This Bill consists, in the first place, of what I shall call "the charter of the dog totes and the football pools;" the second part is the high morality recovery of banning anything in the nature of a large sweepstake while providing conveniently for the small ones; and the third part is the pains and penalties and restrictions on liberty indispensable to Part II. Of these three, the first, I say frankly, is rather disreputable, the second is evidently hypocritical, and the third, I believe, will be largely futile. It seems to me that it would not have been at all a bad plan for us to have set up three or four large British national sweepstakes in this country each year, under some body like the stewards of the Jockey Club, independent and regulated, which would in a moment have blotted out all foreign competition in this matter and solved all the problems of people sending money out of the country, and which would, I believe, have met the wishes of the great majority of the people of this country and would, I further believe, have done them no harm. I agree with what the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mrs. Tate) said, that the fact that a man has a lottery ticket or a share in a lottery ticket cannot do him very much harm. It only happens a few times a year, and it enables his mind, in the toil and monotony of life, to rest occasionally in the mere contemplation and the excitement and pleasure of the hope of a fortune coming to him. At any rate, it is not comparable in its evils to the evils which we are definitely sheltering and legislating for and establishing on a new modern legislative basis in Part I of this Bill.
It seems to me also that the true opinion of the House was probably expressed very fairly, very frankly, when
my hon. Friend two years ago obtained leave, under the Ten Minutes Rule, to introduce a Bill setting up national lotteries in England. He tells me—I have not verified the figures myself—that 176 Members voted for it and only, I think, about 120 against, so that it was a fairly full House, fuller, at any rate, than we have had in many of these discussions. That, you see, was the true and honest opinion of the House. I agree that you may say that a First Reading Division usually comes to nothing, but, if there was this moral stigma, if it was so horrible, the unclean thing, with the sort of sense of evil surrounding it from which the hon. Member has always made it his first duty in life to flee, if it really was instinct with this vice, how was it that so many hon. Members were prepared to entertain the discussion and voted on a Division for the introduction of such a Bill?
Here I come to the case of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Patronage Secretary. Here is where he comes on the boards. I remember quite well that occasion. I think we walked through the Lobby together, almost arm in arm. Well, my right hon. and gallant Friend has been converted. He has seen the light in time. He is, as it were, a brand snatched from the burning, nor as was said of the illustrious trimmer, the great Lord Halifax, by Dryden:
Nor changed alone, but turned the balance too,
So much the wit of one brave man can do.
I must say that I believe that Part II of this Measure will be found very largely unenforceable, and it will certainly breed a great deal of resentment. People have written to me to say that they have never taken a ticket in a lottery and that they will now endeavour to do so. A new kind of warfare, an artificial, unnecessary warfare, will be set on foot in the bosom of our anxious and harried land between the persons who wish to assert what they think are their rights to take part in a sweepstake, even though it be a large one, instead of confining themselves to the small ones of which the Home Secretary approves, and the agents of the Home Secretary, working through the law and under the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. That war is going to take the form of an immense amount of evasion and subterfuge, of a great many
regrettable practices on the one hand, and on the other the right hon. Gentleman advances in all the panoply and with all the batteries of the law upon these evildoers of a minor kind.
These unfortunate delinquents will be pursued by every means. First of all, we are to rummage the mails. There must be almost continuous rummaging of His Majesty's mails, and this is a very serious thing. There are certain reasons of State and reasons connected with the administration of criminal justice which may occasionally authorise a Minister to take advantage of the fact that when letters are in the Post Office they are His Majesty's property for the time being, but with that principle used on a large scale, in scores of thousands of cases, to tamper with the privacy of the correspondence of people in this country, many letters being opened without the need —for to catch one, you must open many —is a very great abuse. At the present time, when we have a good constitutional system in this country, when, whether the party opposite is in power or this party is in power, no one feels that the sort of things are going to be done in this country that are habitually done all over the world to the citizens of many other countries, namely, every form of espionage and intrigue, I assert that it is the most serious disadvantage inherent in Part II of this Bill that there should be this rummaging of the mails and tampering with private correspondence for what I consider, and what nine men out of 10 in this House and this country consider, a very trivial matter.
The right hon. Gentleman is to search the homes. He has the right to enter the homes on a new pretext. It is this Part II that makes it necessary particularly, or certainly as much as Part I, and we discussed yesterday how great an evil and injury that was. I am delighted that the opinion has been so strongly expressed on this side that one of our great duties is to limit the intrusions upon the home and very strictly to guard the ordinary, plain people of this country from anything like contact with police officers. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not mind if a warrant to search his house were issued. I do not believe it. He does not mind a friendly constable coming to his door to make sure that he has renewed his game licence or with any other inquiry con-
netted with his motor car or something like that—a perfectly friendly transaction—but suppose he was out of the Government and was even in great hostility to the Government, and found that he was no longer respected as he is in the great position which he holds, but that a warrant had been issued to search his house, and he had to submit to the searching of all his boxes and every cabinet and cupboard in the whole place, and explain to a constable, on the warrant merely of a magistrate, because, forsooth, it was alleged—and it might only be alleged; it might be a mere pretext under a bad administration—that he, falling away from the high principles with which we are familiar in these Debates, had taken part in selling a few tickets in a sweepstake, I think he would be very much annoyed indeed.
Lastly, there is the question of the censorship of the Press. To the rummaging of the mails, to the intrusions in the home, is added the censorship of the Press. Obviously that is a big step, and if you are going to try to deal with this problem, I feel that the publication of the lists of winners and so forth is necessary. There is an Amendment on the Paper, which we shall reach presently, which seeks to provide for the Irish papers and papers printed on the Continent, but it certainly in no way stops the loophole to which I drew attention. These papers have great circulations. They undoubtedly can and will be brought in and will gain over the English Press, their English rivals, by the fact that they will contain this news. Then there is the question of the broadcast referred to by my hon. Friend, about which no answer has been given. A gentleman, a correspondent, has written to me, since these Debates began, showing me a scheme by which I can well imagine, without the slightest breach of the law under this Act, it would be possible to frustrate to a very large extent the purpose of the Home Secretary, but I am not going to reveal it. I am going so far to act with him and to leave such matters to work themselves out. But, believe me, all over the place thousands of cunning brains will set to work to see how they can steer their way through this legislation, and as long as you have not got the conscience of the people on your side, you will find, in
these venial matters, that it is very difficult to enforce strict obedience.
Then an hon. Friend of mine not now in his place, the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor), suggested to the Government that a much better way would be to say that you would take all the winnings by law, a 100 per cent, tax on the winnings of anybody who entered a sweep. As far as I can make out, that would only make sure that all the money went out of the country, because a man who won, with a 10s. ticket, £10,000 or £20,000 would probably just go abroad to spend it until the hue and cry had died down. Therefore, I cannot see that from any point of view the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to enforce this legislation. In spite of endless friction an enormous amount of breaches of the law would occur, not only to the detriment of this Bill, but to the detriment of the general respect for law and obedience to law which have been the characteristic of the English people, in such marked contradiction to the state of things which has occurred in some transatlantic countries with which the Noble Lady opposite is so well acquainted. I must, however, say this, because we have to face a serious issue, that I hope that the resentment which this Bill will create will not induce people to endeavour to frustrate the intentions of Parlialiament, because undoubtedly it is an evil that money should be sent to the Dublin sweepstake and out of the country in large quantities.
Why are we put in that dilemma? How much better it would have been to handle Part II on lines of principle in accordance with Part I. How much better it would have been to provide a lightning conductor of a few sweepstakes, which would have relieved you from the whole of your troubles. Even now why not drop Part II? When we cannot compel you by any resistance in the House, believe me it is enormously to the interest of the Government that they should do that. If Part II were dropped, a Bill could be introduced, preferably by a private Member, which with the assistance of the Government would place this matter in a situation in which it would meet the wishes and desires of the country. In the case of the old parable of the sun and the north wind, when the north wind
blew the young man pulled his coat more tightly about him, but when the genial sun came out he cast it from him; when the genial sun of commonsense comes out the cloak of subterfuge can be cast away. The Government would achieve a real diminution of gambling if they adopted that course. When we ask the Home Secretary to do this, he replies that they have made up their minds to do this because they are going to do it. Might we not learn some of the springs of thought that have led to this process, which have led to the thought—"This is our view, and we are going to stick to it." If you look at this Bill, the kind of gambling that is allowed is decided on the caprice of the Home Secretary, not on commonsense. They say, "We will allow this and not allow that. This is a shocking crime and from this—which is the same thing—we will take a. rake-off and also have a profit from Income Tax." There is no principle in this, no reason given. The Home Secretary has decided on an act of power—not reason. The German Emperor at the Royal Proclamation at Munich said:
Hoc volo, sic jubeo; sit pro ratione voluntas.
which, for the benefit of the Treasury Bench I will translate, having, for greater security, brushed up my knowledge on the subject, "So I will, so I order; let my will stand for a reason."
It is not quite the way the House likes to be treated, and because of that some of the friction that has been expressed in a courteous manner has arisen. When I come to look at this Bill I must say it conforms to no principle either of policy or of morals. The morals of Part I are entirely different from those of Part II, and the policy of the Bill as a whole is most detrimental. As to the row of able men on that bench who are never tired of telling us how vital they are to the country, that they should continue to guard and guide our course, nothing could be more unfortunate for the National Government that that two Bills should occupy us all this time, on one of which we are going to vote to-night. One Bill will dismiss thousands of Liberals to their old allegiance. Undoubtedly this one will cause widespread discontent, certainly resentment and scorn among the working-class supporters of the Conservative party.
We are now going to divide upon Clause 21. Many of us are going to vote against it. Nobody must vote against Clause 21 under any illusion of what that vote means. It is no use concealing the fact that if defeated it will destroy Part II of the Bill. A vote against Clause 21 is equivalent to the omission of Part II of the Bill, although technically expressed in a different form. I shall give my vote for the Amendment for that very reason, in the hope that in the near future there will be national sweepstakes Lander proper safeguards, and that they will be authorised by Parliament, and that all this detestable apparatus of restriction and penalties for new and minor offences will pass away from us like the fogs that sometimes afflict us in November.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I hope the House will sympathise with me in the difficult task of following the right hon. Gentleman. I have listened to all the Debates on this Bill from the first day in Committee upstairs. If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so, he has taunted us on this side of the House on more than one occasion with the accusation that we have saved the Government from defeat on this Bill. I speak for myself and say frankly that in all proceedings on this Bill I have had to choose between two evils—the evil National Government and that of the right hon. Gentleman and his followers. When I have to choose between the present Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman, I always plump for the Secretary of State, because on this issue I think he speaks the mind of the people of this country very much more correctly than the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. baronet referred to a Resolution at the Tory Conference as the voice of the people.

Sir W. DAVISON: The voice of a section of the people.

Mr. DAVIES: Dukes, duchesses and knights just meet at Tory Conferences together and, in the main, represent nobody but themselves. They pass Resolutions almost unanimously, and then go for a good dinner. And they think they represent the mind of the people. Let me turn for a moment to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He
has told us that the House of Commons ought to be consistent, because it gave a First Reading to a Bill to legalise lotteries proposed some time ago. Nobody knows better than he that when an hon. Member introduces a Bill the House by courtesy, whether they agree with it or not, vote for it.

Sir W. DAVISON: The practice of the House is very often to agree to the introduction of a Bill. When there is a Division on a Bill then those who agree with the principle vote for it, and those who do not vote against it.

Mr. DAVIES: I am under the impression that when a Bill is introduced in the manner in which the hon. Member brought in his Measure Members vote for the Bill to see what it contains. It is no use using that argument. The right hon. Member wants to establish in this country three or four national sweepstakes a year. If he does not mind my being frank I have listened with interest to his speeches in this House for 13 years and I remember him as a Liberal candidate for one of the divisions of Manchester. I then went to hear him speak. He taunts the Patronage Secretary with changing his mind. Who is there in British politics who has changed his mind more often than the right hon. Gentleman? When he talks of liberty that word above all should not fall from his mouth. In 1911 he sent a battalion of soldiers to the Rhondda Valley and showed the colliers there what liberty meant. He would do it again, and then use the plea, of liberty for the working class in this connection. Nobody has done more against the working class, and he is only using them now for his own argument. He taunted the hon. Member below the Gangway with being a killjoy. I am not a killjoy, but I will tell him what has made me sad. In the city where I live a small shopkeeper won some time ago £2,000 or £3,000 in a sweepstake. In 15 months he was in a workhouse having spent the whole on drink, and died a raving lunatic. Let me ask, therefore, are we not entitled on occasions to take heed of that sort of thing?
The right hon. Gentleman has occupied nearly all the great posts of State with eminence. I pay him tribute, though I do not agree with him. He is one of the most brilliant orators I have heard. For a man of his eminence, standing as he
does at the top of the political scale, to descend to this problem of petty sweepstakes is soiling and besmirching his political reputation. I have been astonished at his attitude. He taunted an hon. Member with softening his argument, with coming to reason, and then spoke of the able men on the Treasury Bench. I heard his words last evening; they were not quite so pleasant and courteous.
Let me now deal with one or two, of the arguments of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who compared the enforcement of law in this country with what is happening in America. I think I can appeal to his intelligence when I say that the administration of any law in America is a different proposition from the administration of law in this country.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I do not want to be misquoted. I did not compare the adminstration of the law. I said if you attempted prohibition in this country you would have happening here precisely the same thing that happened in America

Mr. DAVIES: That is exactly what I was corning to. I have been in the United States on two occasions and have tried to look at their problems. The mere fact that every nationality in the world and every race and creed is to be found within the United States while here we are men and women of the same stock makes a comparison between respect for the law in America and here impossible.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: We have the law broken in this country in every street and constituency now in respect of street betting.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Gentleman must not try and divert my argument. Let me give an illustration I have used before. The argument is that what `gas failed in America must of necessity fail here. I deny that argument. The city of Chicago has a population of 2,500,000, while we have 42,000,000. The number of murders in Chicago in 1927 was exactly the same as the number for the whole of this country. The conditions in the two countries are altogether different and comparisons will not hold good.
An hon. Lady who is not in her seat at the moment put up an amazing argu-
ment. She rather surprised me when she said that the Government ought to have brought forward a bold and courageous Bill to deal with gambling root and branch. Almost in the same sentence she asked, in view of the dull and drab life of the working classes, what was wrong with a little flutter now and then? I am not so much opposed to a man betting if he can afford to. I object, however, as I have said on many occasions, to a group of people living in luxury as parasites by exploiting the weaknesses of their fellows. Everybody who has been in the House during the last 10 years has helped to establish the several social services, of which we are all proud. There is probably nothing equal to it in any country of the world—unemployment insurance, pensions, health insurance benefits and the rest of it. We now find groups of people doing all they can to get sixpences and shillings from the poor. Knowing that the man who is drawing unemployment benefit is depressed, they devise their schemes in order to secure moneys received from the social services. I object to people living in luxury on the sixpences and shillings that come from the homes of men receiving these social benefits when that money would be much better spent on food and clothing for their children. On that score, I say that I am literally ashamed of the right hon. Gentleman coming here to plead for lotteries as he has done this evening.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to what we are debating'? Is it the Clause or the general question raised in the Bill? I have listened to most of the speeches and I am not sure whether it is the Clause or the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Debate is on Part II of the Bill. References have been made to other parts of the Bill in Rome of the speeches, but the general -Debate has been on Part II

7.20 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Whatever views we hold on this problem, the House is grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving the Ruling you did in order that a wide discussion might take place upon this Clause. It
is evident from the Debate that there are people, both in the House and outside, who take widely divergent views about this problem. It is unnecessary to argue, and, indeed, I do not think it is an argument which one can make, that there is any difference between the wealthy person and the working man, who may both take the same point of view. There are others, who may be wealthy or workers, who may take the opposite view. As I understand from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), this is a direct challenge to the whole of Part II of the Bill. Of course, he well knows that if the Amendment were carried it would mean the finish, not only of Part II, but of the Bill as a whole. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]
People have asked me what it was that induced the Government to Ouch so thorny a subject and so difficult a problem. The answer is, I think, very clear. What was it that public opinion brought into being? Public opinion so worked upon Members of this House and those responsible for the Government that a Royal Commission was appointed. We may differ as to the wisdom or lack of wisdom in giving way to that feeling, but that that feeling did exist, that that anxiety was apparent, that it was represented, not from one source, but from to infinity of sources in this country, is indisputable. What ought the Government to do when they have received the report of a Royal Commission, which has sat for a considerable period of time. which has taken evidence, not from one class of persons, but from all kinds of people, and which has made certain recommendations. The Government, of course, could have utterly ignored it, but anybody who knows the circumstances of government and the responsibilities of the Government knows that it is very unusual on a subject of this kind which has moved this House for the Government to neglect to take some action.
We have framed this Bill, and particularly Part II, with one object. It was not done in the spirit of killjoy. It was in order to clarify, if we can, some of the problems dealing with lotteries and betting in this country. Under the existing law, as everybody who has studied the problem knows, it is illegal to have lotteries in this country. The modest sweepstake which trade unions
or Conservative clubs have been in the habit of conducting are illegal and are liable to have action taken against them under the existing law. It is true that, having considered the report of the Commission, the Government decided—and, as I have argued, in my judgment rightly—that large State lotteries are not desirable either from the point of view of the credit and the financial position of this country, or from the fact that they lead to exploitation and to circumstances in which no Government which has regard for its position and its responsibilities will take any part or share.
On the contrary side of the sheet are lotteries and sweepstakes and draws in clubs, trade unions and bazaars. We are, in Part II of the Bill, regularising under certain restrictions certain things which up to now have been illegal. If one were to listen to some of the representations which have been made from such quarters as were referred to by the hon. Baronet to-day and by those who spoke for some sections of the clubs, one would suppose that nothing was being done to legalise what they are doing illegally today. It is right that the House should understand what, in fact, we are doing in this matter. I have been asked some questions by certain hon. Members with regard to the position of a man if he were to send 10s. across to Ireland for a ticket in the Irish Sweepstake. As we have framed this Bill, the whole scheme is to attack the seller or the agent in this country. As I am advised, what is made an offence under Part II is broadly the sale or distribution in this country, and it does not make it an offence to send 10s. to Dublin for a ticket for the man himself. If, on the other hand, that individual sells, or hands money to other people for the purpose of purchase, that is quite another matter.
I have been asked what "a chance" means. This phraseology has been used in legislation for a long period. Broadly speaking, I will put it in this way. There may be tickets in most of these lotteries, but there are some lotteries and sweepstakes in clubs where no ticket passes. The name is written upon some form: That is a chance and so long as that is used in a club or trade union it is legalised under this Bill. Reference has been made to the fact that people may not send information about a draw which takes place in sonic English town in
connection with a trade union to, say, Glasgow. Of course to do that would cut across the whole principle of this Measure. It is because we will not have a universal sweepstake throughout the country that we will not interfere with the modest sweepstake in an area for a purpose which is not for personal gain.
This Debate has raised a good many problems. It is asserted that the Bill is badly constructed. If that be so, why is there all this indignation and anxiety? If it will not work why all this fuss? It is the intention of the draftsmen and the Government that it should work. It would indeed be a calamity, and would stultify the action of this House, if, after this Measure had been given a Second Reading with a Division and certain decisions had been come to after its detailed consideration in Committee, the intentions of Parliament were not carried out.
This is an attempt to deal, admittedly, with a portion only of a very large problem, leaving out off-the-course betting. It is devised in no grandmotherly spirit, and with no desire to prevent the honest man or woman who desires to "have a flutter," who wants to have, in a phrase which has been so often used, "a bob upon a horse" or a greyhound, from doing so; but it does attack, and I trust will make things more difficult for, those people who exploit sweepstakes to rob the people. Throughout the proceedings in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House claims have been put forward which the Government have not felt able to concede, but at least we have tried, quite honestly, to go as far as we could in order to relieve the anxiety of those who are conducting the various interests concerned with this problem of betting. At the same time it would be an impossible position for any responsible Government to accept the principle that the problem must be dealt with and then to bring forward a Bill which would not, in fact, carry out what was intended.
Let me speak of newspaper problems. Whether or not we agree that the Irish sweepstake has been stimulated because it was advertised by those who run it, and that otherwise it would not have caught the public fancy, it yet remains perfectly true that if every home could
receive a flaring advertisement of the possibility of great gain for comparatively small outlay people would be encouraged to take part in sweepstakes who otherwise would not touch them. As to our action in preventing the publication of the results of sweepstakes, who is it that should speak on this point? A letter appeared this morning in a newspaper which has a very wide circulation and which, if it looked at this matter purely as one of business, would desire to continue the publication of those results. That paper takes quite the contrary view. I have in my pocket a letter from the owner of that great paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which paper?"] It is a paper with a great circulation. Whatever we may think, the fact remains that it is a paper with a large circulation, and one would assume that if there were anything in the argument that sweepstakes are wanted by the people those responsible for it would desire to publish the results as a matter of pounds, shillings and pence. On the contrary the owner of that paper asked the Government to stand firm in the position which they have taken up. I say, in conclusion, that I trust the steps we are taking will be efficacious and produce results. The Debate has been a friendly one, conducted with good temper from all side, and I hope we may now proceed to a Division.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I am sure that every hon. Member and everyone in the country will be amazed to hear the statement of the Home Secretary that any individual can now sit down in his home and write out an application to Dublin for a 10s. ticket in the Irish Sweepstake without the necessity of going through the routine of buying it from an agent or having any fears of his 10s. being confiscated in the post—that by this Bill we now have a complete assurance that what was previously illegal will become perfectly legal. In future, the agent will go to the home of an individual to whom he has previously sold tickets and say, "Sign this form applying to Dublin for a ticket, enclose your 10s., and we will post it and the ticket will be sent back to you." Agents in wholesale numbers will be going from door to door asking their old customers to buy tickets. and added numbers will buy tickets now that
they realise that they have got security. I am entirely in favour of sweepstakes and was amazed to hear the line of argument advanced by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). His was one of the most illogical speeches I have ever heard in this House. He says that he represents the opinion of the country, and tries to suggest that the views against the Bill expressed here have not the general approval of the country. I say that there is not a trade union branch or Labour club in the country which supports his point of view. They all run prize draws and sweepstakes, and lots of Members who were previously in this House had their election expenses paid by that method. Supporters have had to go round to raise the money in that way. I know that, because I have had the experience—often.
Then he tried to make our flesh creep by telling us of some man who won £1,500 in a sweepstake and drank himself to death in 15 months. That is an argument that no person should have any more money than is necessary to buy food and pay rent and the hon. Member ought to go about the country advocating that wages and relief should be limited in case people drink themselves to death. I have seen no evidence of it. I know a. number of men who came from the mine and the factory and who drew £2,000 or £5,000 a year as Cabinet Ministers, and I have yet to learn that any of them have drank themselves to death. It is illogical to say that because one person who gets £1,500 drinks himself to death, we must limit the incomes of every human being. I am confident that most of the trade union leaders of the country who enjoy good salaries do not drink themselves to death.
He quoted one case and I will give him another. There is a young woman in Motherwell who won £30,000 in the Irish Sweepstake. She bears the same name as myself, and, as a matter of fact, when I saw the name published I got a shock. I thought it was my name, and I was hoping that I had won £30,000. The father of this young woman was an unemployed miner. She bought a house for her father and mother, she bought a house for herself and got married, she furnished the homes of her two brothers and gave her sister £1,000 with which to start life. That case is a contrast; hut, even so, I do not put it forward as
anything that would justify the running of sweepstakes in this country. We always get these stories. At Labour meetings, when we were dealing with the property owners, somebody always got up and said, "What about the poor old widow who owns property?" putting forward that plea as an argument for doing nothing in the matter of slum clearance. The hon. Member for Westhoughton says that Britain is different from America, that if we lay down a law here it can be enforced, but not in America. When, as a young man of 17 or 18, I started in Labour politics, I had listened to a number of cranks like the hon. Member for Westhoughton and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), who tried to make me believe that if the opportunity for obtaining alcoholic liquor were taken away we could thereby wipe out the desire for drink in every human being. I have lived to see that in America the very opposite happens; and in Glasgow I have seen people adorning benches in the centre of that city who, because they cannot purchase ordinary liquor, are taking methylated spirits and things of that description. Therefore I claim that the argument of the hon. Member does not hold water. The people in America are similar to the people in Britain and the people in Britain are similar to the people in Germany.
Go where we will we find that if we attempt to take away that which the people desire we get a revulsion of feeling, and they adopt illegal methods in order to satisfy their desires. In this country it is illegal to take bets in the street, but as I go up and down the streets of Glasgow I see hundreds of cases of men dodging in and out of doorways with slips and handing them to young men. We all know that bookmaking, prize draws and sweepstakes, which are all illegal, are carried on. During one of the Irish sweepstakes I sat in this House on the Labour benches and one afternoon saw a full book of Irish Sweepstake tickets. A week or two later five out of the six Members who had bought tickets went into the Lobby against a Bill presented by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) says: "I have purchased sweepstake tickets in the Irish Sweepstake, but what I do privately I must not acknowledge and allow other people
to do publicly. I have a public duty to my constituents." I do not say that he is dishonest, but I say it is a horrible spirit in which to deal with public affairs if we are to have two consciences, as the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) says. I do not always blame those in the political world who have two consciences. Sometimes they blame the Tories and Liberals for doing a thing and then do the same thing themselves. That is the double conscience in operation and people attempt to justify it; but I say that if I believed that gambling were illegal, I should vote against this Bill, because this Bill allows the greatest forms of gambling evil to continue in this country. The hon. Member for Bodmin is against gambling, but he is making legal in this country the most pernicious forms of gambling that could be allowed in the community.
We have to consider these questions: Are sweepstakes going on? They are. Is there a public desire for sweepstakes? In my estimation, there is an overwhelming desire by the people of this country for sweepstakes. If that be the ease, why bring in a Bill to attempt to prevent sweepstakes when you know that you cannot enforce your law? You will simply have people buying tickets in other ways. They will meet together and say, "How we tricked the Home Secretary. We drew up schemes in order to overcome the law he laid down." People will be going round the country laughing at the Home Secretary and at his simplicity in imagining that by a simple Bill in this House he could prevent sweepstakes. From beginning to end this is the most muddle-headed and halfwitted Bill which I have ever seen. It is an attempt to stop the average member of the British public taking part in sweepstakes, but it has been shown publicly to-day how the law can be overridden and how people can with comparative safety purchase tickets in their homes. We are told that we cannot permit the publication in the Press of a list of winners. If I won £30,000, I would welcome the fact that the Press did not publish it. I would be completely immune from the appeals which are generally made by people who want donations for charitable objects.
There is the question of the wireless, and it has never been answered. Athlone
can, any night, broadcast appeals to tell you where to send for tickets. The Home Secretary has said that you only need to send 10s. and apply for tickets. Athlone can tell you the winners over the wireless, and groups of people in clubs or in their homes can listen to Athlone and to the publication of the names and the appeals. I cannot imagine a more stupid Bill being passed through the House.
Last evening, 149 Members out of 615 voted. I am told by an individual who claims to know that there were 67 people out of that 149 who are in one kind of Government job or another, and that 60 others are in the running for positions. That leaves 22 persons who cannot be traced as having any interest in the continuation of the Government. Out of 615 persons, 466 refused to vote. I am not saying anything against any Member of the House who cannot be traced, because we know that some of them have meetings and various other functions to attend, but for 466 out of 615 not to vote at a time when we are going round the country and appealing through the Press and from the political platform for all to exercise their votes at the polls means that a great proportion of Members deliberately abstained because they detest the Measure. The Government with all their power can muster only 149. That is all that the coercive power of the Home Secretary can bring to his aid.
I say to the Home Secretary: "You are out of step with the people in the country." The people of this country desire sweepstakes. They desire the opportunity of carrying on in a harmless manner the little pleasures which are afforded to them. We have heard from a Member of the Labour benches that the Government under this Bill are even going to stop cocoanut shies and darts. Think what pleasure women and children get when going round the ordinary show ground. This is all to be stopped. I am sure that if the Home Secretary had to introduce the Bill now he would realise that public opinion is against it. We ought to have legalised sweepstakes, seeing that the people desire them, and they should be upon a proper and legal basis and should be run in the cleanest manner. If the Government do not desire the money to go to Ireland, they should run the sweepstakes, and use the money for the charitable institutions of the country. I warn
the Minister in charge that time will prove the Bill to be unworkable and that the avalanche of opposition in the country will overwhelm him when the opportunity comes.

Division No. 411.]
AYES.
[7.50 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mornan, Robert H


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Nall, Sir Joseph


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Banfield, John William
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Oman, Sir Charles William C


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Greene, William P. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Paling, Wilfred


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen


Blindell, James
Grimston, R. V.
Patrick, Colin M,


Borodale, Viscount
Groves, Thomas E.
Peake, Osbert


Bossom, A. C
Grundy, Thomas W.
Peat, Charles U.


Boulton, W. W.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Penny, Sir George


Bowyer. Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy. Lord Eustace


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Petherick, M.


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Peto. Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brown. Ernest (Leith)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zeti'nd)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Pybus, Sir John


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Radford, E. A.


Burnett, John George
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chemisford)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cape. Thomas
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hepworth, Joseph
Rathbone, Eleanor


Carver, Major William H.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rea, Waiter Russell


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Rickards, George William


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hopkinson, Austin
Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)


Clarke, Frank
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ropner. Colonel L.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hornby, Frank
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Colville. Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Russell, Alexander West (Tynernouth)


Cook, Thomas A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cooke, Douglas
Jackson. Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Cooper. A. Duff
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Salmon. Sir Isidore


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Jamieson. Douglas
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gaineb'ro)
John, William
Sassoon. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cross, R. H.
Ker, J. Campbell
Scone, Lord


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Davies. Edward C. (Montgomery)
Kirkwood, David
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Law, Sir Alfred
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawson, John James
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Dickie, John P.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith. Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lewis, Oswald
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lindsay. Noel Ker
Somervell. Sir Donald


Dunglass, Lord
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Soper, Richard


Eady. George H.
Loftus, Pierce C.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Ellis. Sir R. Geoffrey
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mabane, William
Stanley, Rt, Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Elmley, Viscount
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Stones, James


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Storey, Samuel


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, Edward A.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Stuart. Lord C. Crichton-


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
McKle. John Hamilton
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Evans. R. T. (Carmarthen)
Maclay, Hon, Joseph Paton
Tinker, John Joseph


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Foot. Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Magnay, Thomas
Turton, Robert Hugh


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mainwaring, William Henry
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Manningham-Butler, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Margesaon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


George, Megan A, Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mayhew, Lieut,-Colonel John
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Milner, Major James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
White, Henry Graham

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 71.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Withers, Sir John James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)
Womersley, Sir Walter
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Ward and Major George Davies.


Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hales, Harold K.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Apsley, Lord
Hanley, Dennis A.
Remer, John R.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hartington, Marquess of
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Bracken, Brendan
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Buchanan, George
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)


Christie, James Archibald
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Taylor,Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Lees-Jones, John
Templeton, William P.


Daggar, George
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Leonard, William
Thorne, William James


Dobbie, William
Levy, Thomas
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Doran, Edward
McEntee, Valentine L.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Drewe, Cedric
McGovern, John
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington,N.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wise, Alfred R.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marsden, Commander Arthur



Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Maxton, James.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sir W. Davison and Mr. Herbert Williams.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pike, Cecil F.

CLAUSE 22.—(Offences in connection with lotteries.)

8.0 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 21, line 9, to leave out from the beginning to "any" in line 10.
This Amendment must be read in reference to the next Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend—in page 21, line 13, to leave out from "any" to "calculated" in line 14, and to insert:
such matter descriptive of the drawing or intended drawing of the lottery, or otherwise relating to the lottery, as is.
When the Clause was discussed in Committee, this point arose in connection with Sub-section (1, c, ii) of the Clause as it stood in the unamended Bill. It contained the words:
any matter descriptive of the drawing or intended drawing of the lottery,
and I ventured to point out that "matters descriptive" might in fact constitute an advertisement, in the sense that it was calculated to induce people to put their money into the lottery. It was, however, suggested that the words were too wide, and might include news matter inserted for no such purpose and having no such result. Therefore, we propose to lift these words from paragraph (ii) into paragraph (iii), where they will he qualified by the words:
Calculated to act as an inducement to persons to participate in that lottery or in other lotteries,
and paragraph (ii) will simply relate to the list of winners, which my right hon. Friend admitted, in conceding the principle, was something which ought to be prohibited. This will have one further result, namely, that any proceedings in respect of
matters descriptive…calculated to act as an inducement…
can only be taken with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, as they will now be in the paragraph proceedings under which require the consent of the Director under Sub-section (3) of the Clause.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very much obliged to the Solicitor-General and the Home Secretary. I consider that the point which I ventured to make has been fully met by these Amendments.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This is a matter to which I drew attention during the Committee stage, and I should be grateful if the Solicitor-General would explain its significance, because I am not quite clear what it will be. If, for example, a newspaper announces that yesterday there was a draw in Dublin for the Irish Sweepstake, and goes on to say that the number of tickets sold was 3,000,000 and
the prizes amount to so much—just a bare statement without anything else in the nature of incitement—would the Solicitor-General regard that as matter calculated to act as an inducement to persons to participate? In other words, could he give some indication of what is in his mind as to how much newspapers will be permitted to give?

8.5 p.m.

Mr. STOREY: I am quite prepared to agree that the Amendments which the Solicitor-General proposes go a long way to meet the objections of the newspapers, which were voiced by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) during the Committee stage; but it would be idle to pretend that the newspapers are at all satisfied with the proposed curtailment of their freedom that is embodied in this Clause. The Newspaper Society, which represents some 1,000 morning, evening and weekly newspapers in this country, does not wish to encourage lotteries, but, although the practical effects of this Clause will not be a very great inconvenience to the newspapers, it feels seriously perturbed at the growing tendency of Parliament to restrict the freedom of the Press in reporting a mere fact about some act which is perfectly legal in itself. The Press do not want licence; they only want liberty. They quite realise that they must not publish anything which is seditious, or anything which is blasphemous, and that where the safety of the State is in question they must submit to censorship; but they object very strongly to being told that they must not print some fact about an act which is quite legal, such as that the Home Secretary himself holds a ticket in a lottery. He has told us that that is perfectly legal, and we see no reason why we should not be able to report a legal act.
The argument, we are told, is that if we publish that information we shall be encouraging other people to do likewise. I do not think that that is a very sound argument. Next we may find the right hon. Gentleman coming down to the House and saying, "We are losing a lot of by-elections; let us prohibit the papers from publishing the results of by-elections," in the hope that other constituencies will not be prepared to do what Swindon and North Lambeth have already done. This tendency to restrict
the freedom of the Press in reporting facts has not worked out well in the past. The most recent example was in the case of divorce proceedings, where newspapers are prohibited from reporting the speeches of counsel and the evidence given in court. Such a staunch supporter of that Bill, when it was passed, as the senior Member for Oxford -University (Lord H. Cecil), is telling us that now he is sorry that the Bill was ever passed; while judges of the High Court are telling us that the large number of divorce cases is largely due to the lack of reports in the newspapers. We may find the same thing with lotteries. If the facts are not published, and certain gentlemen know that the fact of their having a mild flutter is to be kept from their constituents and will not be published in the local paper, the Home Secretary, may find that he is actually encouraging the sale of lottery tickets.
With the practical effect of this Clause as it will be amended we are not seriously concerned, except on one point, and that is that, as the Clause is drafted, the supplies of foreign newspapers coming into this country will not be protected, and if any foreign newspaper comes into this country the publisher will be liable, to prosecution if it contains any reference to a lottery. We do not want to make any loophole for the flooding of this country with foreign newspapers containing news which British newspapers cannot publish, but we desire to ask the Home Secretary, if the later Amendment standing in my name is called, whether he will not provide that the ordinary commercial supplies of foreign newspapers coming into this country shall still be available to the people of this country, even though they may contain some reference to a lottery.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: in page 21, line 13, leave out from "any" to "calculated," in line 14, and insert:
such matter descriptive of the drawing or intended drawing of the lottery, or otherwise relating to the lottery, as is."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

8.12 p.m.

Mr. STOREY: I beg to move, in page 22, line 5, at the end, to insert:
(4) In any proceedings instituted under paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of this section, in respect of any matter published in a newspaper, it shall be a defence to prove
that the newspaper is normally printed outside Great Britain, and that of the edition containing such matter not more than the normal daily number published and distributed in Great Britain have been so published and distributed.
The purpose of this Amendment is to protect the normal commercial supplies of foreign newspapers coming into this country. The Home Secretary, in his reply during the Committee stage, said he did not anticipate that what was being done would interfere with ordinary commercial distribution. The Amendment simply seeks to make it quite clear and definite that, if no more than the ordinary commercial supply comes into the country, the publisher will not be liable to prosecution. I think the Amendment will achieve its purpose, and is perfectly workable. We have no desire whatever to give a loophole to foreign newspapers to flood this country with news of lotteries, but we ask that the public shall not he prohibited from getting their normal supplies of foreign newspapers simply because they may contain some reference to a lottery.

8.13 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Government, in dealing with this problem, have gone a considerable way, as my hon. Friend admitted when he spoke just now, to meet what we conceive to be the legitimate anxiety of those connected with the newspaper industry, but this Amendment, of course, cuts right into the question of what justification there would be for totally prohibiting the publication of this information in the British Press and at the same time leaving the door open for the entry into this country of large quantities of foreign newspapers publishing the same matter. It is, of course, the fact that there will be a curtailment, but I think it is essential if we are to have the powers which we desire in order to deal with the problem. I may say I understand that already in Northern Ireland the papers take steps for dealing with this problem, and find no great difficulty about it. In the circumstances, I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Frankly, the statement of the Home Secretary disappoints me. It was I who raised this point, and it was because I raised it that
he promised reconsideration, but the reconsideration has not been given in respect of the point that I raised at the end, but in respect of the earlier point. There were two points. The one was the prohibition of the publication in newspapers of facts, and that has been partly dealt with. The second point, which obviously caused some consternation when I raised it, was the one which led the Home Secretary to promise some examination of the matter. It will be remembered that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) said that there was a very large circulation in Liverpool of newspapers coming from Northern Ireland. These circulate among the enormous Irish population of Liverpool, which is both Green and Orange, as those who are familiar with that city will know.
The hon. Member wanted to know what was going to happen, and whether these newspapers were going to be stopped when they were unloaded from the boat at the landing stage, or whether the newsagents in Liverpool were to be prosecuted if they delivered them. What is going to happen to a man who is a subscriber to an Irish newspaper which is regularly sent him by post? Is it to be stopped in the post? There are stalls at the London railway termini where the Paris "Daily Mail" is available. Are those copies going to be prohibited? The Home Secretary has not given the slighest consideration to the point. The fact that he has made a concession in respect of an entirely different point is no answer to the point that I raised the other night. If we are not careful, we are going to have this extraordinary situation, that people in this country may be deprived on certain days of the opportunity of reading any foreign newspaper whatever merely on the ground that it contains matter which is illegal under this Clause. I must ask the Home Secretary to give a more adequate reply than he has given on this point.

8.16 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: It must not be understood, from the fact that we have agreed to give facilities for the passing of these Amendments, that we are going to allow an absurd Bill to go on to the Statute Book. I get an Irish newspaper every day. When there is an Irish Sweepstake, are the particulars going to be blotted out, or am I not to receive it
on that day? This seems to me a very reasonable Amendment, and it is also desired by the newspapers, that where people are in the habit of having a French, Irish or German newspaper they should continue to have it, but that the market should not be flooded on the day of the sweep with thousands of additional copies? I cannot understand why the Home Secretary does not accept it, and, if he does not, will he kindly state what are his plans in the matter? Does he intend to stop these papers coming in or not? Are the bookstalls at Victoria and elsewhere to be prevented from selling the "Temps," the "Figaro" and the "Irish Times" on certain days of the year, because there is a sweepstake in Dublin or a lottery in Paris? It is a most important point, and we have had no information from the Government. The hon. Member speaks, I understand, on behalf of the Newspaper Society and, unless the Home Secretary can show good reason for not accepting the Amendment, the House should insist upon its insertion.

8.18 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I promised to look into the problem, and I have looked into it most carefully with the advice of those who deal with these problems. The Amendment is in our view unworkable. f, in order to attain a certain object, we prohibit newspapers at home from printing certain information, obviously it would be grossly unfair to allow foreign newspapers to come into the country and to do behind the backs of the home papers exactly what we are prohibiting the home papers from doing. It is essential that that should be dealt with. As to the case that is put to me that no one will be able to get a foreign newspaper, frankly, that is not what happens in practice. Already there are restrictions under which certain English newspapers going into Northern Ireland, for instance, have to leave out information which is prohibited. The same thing applies with regard to the "Times" in America in certain circumstances. In any case, it is clearly essential that, if this step for the protection of the public against what Parliament considers undesirable in our home papers is to be made effective, it must be extended to foreign newspapers.

Mr. STOREY: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Amendment
is unworkable? Also, is he not aware that the restrictions on the "Times" in America have been withdrawn?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to take steps to stop the newspapers that arrive daily at the house of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir W. Davison) and anyone else in a similar position'? Is he going to stop papers which come daily by post as the result of a regular subscription?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It will depend, no doubt, on the circumstances. If they come through an agent, undoubtedly the agent will be liable.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If they come by post—

Sir J. GILMOUR: They might in certain circumstances come in that form, but clearly it is right that it should Lot be thought that foreign newspapers can gain access to this country to defeat the object of this Measure. In regard to the question of the hon. Member opposite, I understand that recently there has been some alteration with regard to the position of the "Times" in America.

Mr. STOREY: Why is the Amendment unworkable?

Sir J. GILMOUR: We have looked at it carefully to see whether it could be worked. In our view, you would have to take all sorts of very complicated steps to ascertain the actual facts and circumstances, and we do not think it is practicable.

Amendment negatived.

8.23 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 22, line 6, to leave out Sub-section (4).
This Sub-section was discussed in Committee, and it was suggested that it contravened the general principle of justice that a man should be deemed to be innocent until he was proved guilty. I suggested in Committee that this Section did not contravene this principle. It is important not only that we should observe the spirit of that principle but that there should be no appearance of impinging on it our legislation. I admit that the arguments that I put before the Committee were not accepted. We have taken into consideration the representations that were put forward and we propose to leave out the Sub-section.

Sir W. DAVISON: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the Amendment. It is certainly a matter to which many people took grave exception.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 23.—(Exemption, of small lotteries incidental to certain entertainments.)

8.25 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 22, line 30, to leave out from "deducting," to "shall," in line 33, and to insert:

"(i) the expenses of the entertainment, excluding expenses incurred in connection with the lottery; and
(ii) the expenses incurred in printing tickets in the lottery; and
(iii) such sum (if any) not exceeding ten pounds as the promoters of the lottery think fit to appropriate on account of- any expense incurred by them in purchasing prizes in the lottery."
This deals with lotteries conducted from the proceeds of entertainments. It was pointed out in Committee that prizes and raffles were not always presented but were paid for out of the proceeds of a bazaar. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that many of these organisations were not wealthy people. I undertook at the time to look into the matter, and, having given careful consideration to it, I suggest the adoption of the Amendment which stands on the Order Paper. It in fact allows a sum
not exceeding ten pounds as the promoters of the lottery think fit to appropriate on account of any expense incurred by them in purchasing prizes in the lottery.
I hope that, having tried to meet the hon. Gentleman and various Members of the House, they will accept the Amendment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: We are very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his concession. We believe that it will make a difference in thousands of cases, and that he has gone far enough in meeting the objection.

Mr. PETHERICK: As one who urged the Home Secretary to meet us our intention with regard to the Amendment, I beg to thank him very much for his kindness and consideration.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

8.27 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out "ten," and to insert "twenty-five."
The sum of £10, in many cases, would not be enough. A very common prize at a bazaar is a gold watch to be raffled for men and a gold bracelet for ladies, and £10 would not be enough to meet the expense of the prizes at any fair sized bazaar. I think that nobody would be able to say that £25 would be encouraging betting and gambling. Some of my friends suggested that the sum should be £50, and I said that that might be thought to be an encouragement of betting and gambling within the meaning of the new Bill, and therefore I suggested the sum of £25. I hope that the Home Secretary and the House will think that that sum is not unreasonable. There might be two or three raffles for which, prizes were offered, and £10 would leave a very narrow margin, whereas 225 is so small that nobody would be induced to go specially to the bazaar in order to get one of the prizes, yet it might help the promoters of a bazaar very materially to make the show a popular one.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

8.30 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I gave, as I told the House, very careful consideration to this problem, and I confess that at first I was inclined to put in a figure which was less than It is clear that there must be a very strict limit upon the amount. We came to the conclusion, after discussing the problem, that £10 was the most we could reasonably ask the House to accept. If there are undertakings which wish to have prizes of greater value, whether they are gold watches or motor cars, the prizes must be presented, as indeed many of these things are, and it is for that reason that it is impossible for me to accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE 27.—(Power to issue search warrant.)

8.30 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 25, line 40, to leave out from "that," to the word "may," in page 26, line 1, and to insert:
any premises are being used for the purpose of the commission of an offence under this Part of this Act in connection with a lottery or proposed lottery.
In discussions in Committee, not on this Clause, but on an earlier Clause, which, I think, is now Clause 22, reference was made to the search power, and it was suggested that it might be a hardship if a search warrant could be obtained under the words of the Bill as they note stand, namely, on evidence that an offence in connection with a lottery had been committed on any premises. There might be an isolated transaction or a single bundle of tickets in any place intended for distribution, and it is to meet that objection and to carry out what my right hon. Friend said was the intention, with regard to the search warrant that we propose that the new words be inserted making it necessary for a Justice of the Peace to be satisfied, that premises are being used for the purpose of the commission of an offence. That is to say, a warrant will only be issued if there are actual premises being used, and the magistrates are so satisfied, for the commission of an offence. The matter was discussed at some length in Committee and I emphasised at that time the difference which these words made, and I hope that in the circumstances that may be felt by the House to be a sufficient explanation.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 26, line 2, to leave out "named in the warrant."
I think that this matter was also referred to in Committee. I am not quite sure when these words first appeared in the Statute Book, but they are in fact inconvenient in practice. The safeguard for a person is that he must be a constable, and that safeguard is continued in the part of the Clause which deals with how the search warrant may be issued. There might be a case where a constable named in the warrant might for some reason, illness or otherwise, be unable to carry out his duties, and there might
be cases in which resistance was put up against the proper exercise of the law, and in which case it might be necessary to get two or three additional men. I have looked through a good many of these Sections, and certainly these words do not occur in the bulk of them, and as they might cause inconvenience I have moved to leave them out.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 30.—(Penalties for offences sender this Act, and forfeitures.)

8.33 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I beg to move, in page 27, line 5, to leave out "under any section contained in Part II of this Act," and to insert:
of promoting or conducting an unlawful lottery or an unlawful competition.
The object of this Amendment is to prevent these enormous penalties being applied to trivial offences. I have pointed out in the various Debates how very undesirable it is to have a large maximum penalty which may be applied to the most trivial offences. For example, it is absurd that there should be the same penalty for someone who is running a large agency in this country for a foreign lottery and someone who commits a small offence in connection with a church bazaar or a club lottery. The object of the Amendment is to keep the smaller penalties for the smaller offences and the larger penalties for the larger offences, the larger offence being the conducting or promoting of an unlawful lottery or an unlawful competition. It is a reasonable proposal, and I hope the Home Secretary will say that he is prepared to accept it.

Mr. PIKE: I beg to second the Amendment.

8.37 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid, for reasons which I shall try to explain, that we cannot accept the Amendment, although I have some sympathy with the considerations which my hon. Friend has put forward. At first blush, one sees a large penalty and one sees a Clause under which an offence may obviously be very trivial, but let me remind the House, in order to illustrate the principle on which these things are to be dealt with, of another branch of law. Take the case of simple
larceny, under which a man can be sent to penal servitude for five years. That is an offence which might cover the stealing of a postage stamp. In these cases discretion is given and has to be given to those before whom offences are tried, as to the amount of the penalty that can be imposed in any particular case. Where one finds that under a particular section a serious offence may be committed, then it is necessary that a serious penalty should be capable of being inflicted. One must trust the courts, whether they are magistrates or judges, not to inflict an improper or undue penalty where the circumstances are not aggravated and where there is no great degree of culpability.
There is no actual offence under the Bill in the exact terms of my hon. Friend's Amendment. Broadly speaking, his Amendment would leave in the heavier ranks of penalties offences under Clause 22, and keep out offences under Clauses 23 and 24. In regard to Clauses 23 and 24 it is clear that an offence may be of a trivial character. It may be that in the organisation of a bona fide bazaar, owing to inadvertence, tickets may have been sold off the premises. If you are not going to trust the courts, to be able to distinguish between a trivial and a technical offence on the one hand and an aggravated case of deliberate contravention of the law on the other, then we must have a new system. That is one of the most important duties that is imposed upon them. We feel, and that is why we cannot accept the Amendment, that offences may come before the courts under Clauses 23 and 24 where, quite clearly, a heavy penalty ought to be enforced. Take, for example, the case of a professional lottery promoter seeking deliberately to organise under the cloak of a bazaar a lottery, which is clearly illegal, and out of which he is going to make personal profit. He might make considerable personal profit which under the Act could not be forfeited. It would be absurd in that sort of case if the magistrate had not power to impose a substantial penalty.

Sir W. DAVISON: He could put on a fine of £50.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: He might easily have made £50. Take
Clause 24, which covers a lottery got up by an association. There is a possibility of an abuse of that Clause being deliberately adopted in order to conceal an intended contravention of the Act, under which a man might have pocketed profit to a considerable amount. It was because we have in mind these particular abuses by attempts to use Clauses 23 and 24 for that purpose for offences which should be seriously dealt with that we are unable to accept the hon. Member's Amendment, which would put these offences into the Clause under which the penalties are less. There is a further Clause, Clause 26, which deals with newspaper competitions. Clearly, having regard to the circulations of our big newspapers, if there should be—we hope there will not be—a deliberate attempt to contravene the terms of that Clause, a fine of £100 would be a very minor matter to the newspaper. For these reasons we were unable, after considering it very carefully, to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment, and I hope that he may see his way not to press it.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am afraid that on this occasion I am not satisfied with the Solicitor-General's explanation. He said that we have to trust the courts. If he puts that forward as his doctrine, why have two separate classes of penalties? Obviously, we do not trust the courts entirely. We give the courts certain general orders. We give them certain limits within which they may impose penalties. In Clause 30 we prescribe two scales of penalties. Therefore there is no point in the Solicitor-General saying "Why not trust the courts?" He is not trusting them. He said that in respect of certain offences they must not go beyond the provisions of Clause 30 (2). My hon. Friend in his Amendment is proposing that we should increase the class of offences to be dealt with under Subsection (2). What is the use of telling us that we must trust the courts? There is no argument of any merit whatever in that remark. If there was only one Sub-section there might be some merit in the argument.
The Solicitor-General tells us seriously that the offences under Clause 24, which deals with private lotteries, will in general be trivial, but they are to be dealt with under Sub-section (1), where the penalties are heavy. On the other
hand, if I read the Bill aright, under Clause 4, which restricts the number of dog races in a day and prescribes how many meetings you may have in a day, a contravention, which obviously would be very serious, is to be treated as a minor offence. That is perfectly absurd. Can the Solicitor-General give us the slightest reason why we should treat as a minor offence something which runs right through the Clause proposed by the hon. Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt), which was regarded as very important, to prevent there being continuous racing all day long. The penalty there is comparatively light. The possible penalty which may fall on someone promoting an ordinary club sweep, however, may be a heavy one.
This is an instruction to the court, to the judge. He will say, "Parliament has told me that there are two scales of penalties and, therefore, any offence dealt with under Sub-section (1), that is an offence under Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 11 are to be dealt with in one way, but offences under Part 2 must be punished more severely than an offence under other Clauses of the Bill. You are giving to the court a broad hint that the man who is running a club lottery is to be regarded as a more serious offender than the man who is running too many dog races in the day. I hope the Solicitor-General will be allowed to address the House again and give us some arguments which are really worth while. He seems to have caught the Home Secretary's disease, that is to get up and say something which nobody can understand and consider it an argument which should be valid.

8.47 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: I hope we shall get an answer to the serious point raised by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), and that we shall he told whether it is by mere inadvertence that Clause 4 is not included in the list of Clauses incurring the more serious penalties. That is one of the most serious Clauses in the Bill and offences under it should incur severe penalties.

8.48 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not wish to be discourteous to the House and perhaps they will allow me to speak again. Clause 4 was moved as a new Clause in the Committee stage, and it may be that by inadvertence it has not been
included along with Clauses 1, 2 and 3. That probably is the explanation. With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), what I meant was that within limits you must trust the courts, but if under any particular Clause of the Bill you are satisfied that grave and aggravated offences may be committed, it is proper to give the court power to impose higher penalties, although the offence may be of a comparatively trivial character.

Sir B. PETO: May I ask whether there are any means now by which we can rectify the error which has apparently crept in by inadvertence?

8.49 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Crookshank): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not in the House at the present moment, but I am quite willing, if you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, are prepared to accept it, to move a manuscript Amendment.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: That cannot be done now as we have passed that point.

Captain CROOKSHANK: It may be that the procedure of the other House is sufficiently elastic to enable it to deal with the matter as a consequential Amendment, which was overlooked in Committee.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think if the Under-Secretary can give an undertaking of that kind the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) would be satisfied. No Amendment has been made consequential on passing the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Sir A. Butt), and if the procedure of the other place will permit of the Amendment being made then the major point of the hon. Member for South Croydon will be met.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I am not quite clear as to the nature of the desired alteration, but I think it may be it is one which can be dealt with as a printer's correction, and, if that be the case, no difficulty arises. We cannot amend the Bill now in respect of any part of the Bill which has been already dealt with on Report, but I hope
I am right in thinking that it can be dealt with as a printer's correction in the printing of the Bill.

8.51 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I object to the Bill being altered unless my Amendment is inserted. I think these words should be inserted. It is ridiculous to put in enormous penalties and then trust magistrates and judges to put on the right penalty. If you make these crimes you should fix the penalties. The House of Commons should fix adequate penalties for offences and not put in a fine of £700 for an offence which may be only trivial.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now making a second speech. If it is a question of what I have described as a printer's correction; then it is a matter for the authorities of the House. As regards the hon. Member's Amendment that is a matter upon which he has to persuade the House to pass it.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Would it be in order for me to move the Adjournment of the Debate for a few minutes to enable the appropriate consultations to take place to see whether we can rescue ourselves from the dilemma in which we are now plunged? If that Motion is in order and hon. Members on the Front Bench would like an opportunity of consulting the Home Secretary, I shall be willing to oblige, and to give reasons for some minutes why the Debate should be adjourned, in order to give them the opportunity.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see that there is any reason for such a Motion.

Amendment negatived.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I beg to move, in page 27, line 8, to leave out "one hundred" and to insert "twenty."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would suggest that on this Amendment of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) it should be open to the House to discuss generally the question of penalties dealt with by a number of Amendments on the Order Paper. It will be understood that those Amendments
will not be called except for the purpose of making any necessary alterations.

Mr. PETHERICK: The second Amendment in my name deals with the question whether a person convicted of an offence under the Bill shall be sentenced to four months instead of three months. That is a slightly differing point. Shall I be in order in discussing that question?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss generally the question of penalties, and the hon. Member on this Amendment can discuss the whole question of penalties including the point which is specifically raised in his next Amendment.

Mr. PETHERICK: The group of Amendments standing in my name and that of other hon. Members explain themselves. They are intended to reduce the extremely heavy, the unnecessarily heavy penalties under certain Clauses of the Bill. In moving these Amendments, I have been careful to avoid cases which will be dealt with by indictment. It may seem to my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General a little illogical that I am dealing in this group of Amendments only with cases which will be dealt with by summary jurisdiction courts. The reason is that if I had dealt also with indictment cases I should have been moving to reduce penalties for various serious offences. It is quite possible that some rich companies might be guilty of such offences and, of course, it is no good fining them a very small sum. I have, therefore, devoted my attention in these Amendments to the comparatively minor cases which will be dealt with by courts of summary jurisdiction. The penalty reductions which I am suggesting for the minor cases make a divergence greater betwen the penalties in those cases and those which will be suffered by people who are convicted upon indictment.
I am not particularly wedded to any given sum, but I have made certain suggestions which I hope the Solicitor-General will carefully consider. There are quite minor offences which, I understand, do come under Clause 30, Sub-section (1, a). One of them is quite a small one, such as the case of a bookmaker whose licence is out of date, or a person who had a ticket in the Irish sweep. As the Bill stands, on summary conviction for a
first offence a man may be fined £100, and for a second offence he may be sentenced to three months imprisonment. I ask the House to compare these penalties with those under the Bill which we recently discussed, the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. Under that Bill for the first offence a man could be fined £20 and/or be sentenced to four months imprisonment, and for a second offence be fined £20 and receive four months imprisonment and so on, unless he is dealt with on indictment subsequently. If the House will compare the offence under the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, in which a man is convicted of seducing His Majesty's Forces from their duty to the Crown, and the offence envisaged by this Bill, and will then compare the penalties, I think the House will conclude that the penalties under this Bill are unreasonably and ridiculously high. Then the heinousness of the offence is not comparable, in the opinion of the majority of Members.
There is one other point which is dealt with in the Second Amendment in my name. That Amendment, if accepted, would render the person who was convicted under Sub-section (1, a) of a second offence to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. I want to make it four months. The reason is not that I wanted to make the penalty higher, for on the contrary I wanted to make it lower; but I do want to give the person accused of a minor offence the benefit of jury. We have had various opinions as to the gravity of the offence of betting or gambling. Some of us think it is a very grave offence. Others think it is a minor offence, and still others do not think it is an offence at all. They think the vice of gambling is not nearly so serious as the vice of intolerance. These people may be magistrates on a bench and they may take an unduly serious view of a case before them. It is, therefore, my intention in my second Amendment to make it possible for a person charged with an offence under this Clause to claim the benefit of jury. I do not think that that is an unreasonable contention.
The rest of the Amendments relate to Sub-section (2, a). There again I am not dealing in any way with the more serious offences which will be dealt with by indictment. I am dealing with very minor offences indeed. The House will
see that a person guilty of such an offence may be fined £50 and may he sent to prison for two months, and for a second offence may be fined £100. I wish to reduce those penalties also to reasonable proportions. One possible minor offence which may come under this Sub-section is that of a bookmaker on a dog-racing track. There may be a rush of people to bet, and a boy may run up to him and put on 2s. at the last moment. Under the Bill anyone who is apparently under the age of 18 must not bet. But that bookmaker would be guilty of an offence for which he could be fined £50 on first conviction. I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary will say that of course these are maximum penalties. So was the penalty of hanging for sheep stealing 100 years ago. It is quite easy to say that. Magistrates might take unduly harsh views and inflict these penalties. Therefore, I ask the Under-Secretary to meet the rather grave anxiety of many Members who do not oppose this Bill out of factiousness, or because they have any interest in any section, such as greyhound racing, but are alarmed at the Bill's effect on the ordinary man in the street. I hope he will consider the matter, and if possible reduce penalties which many of us think are far too high.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: I beg to second the Amendment.
In my opinion, this Amendment and the two which follow it are extremely reasonable. I would impress upon the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary that they are particularly worthy of consideration because we are entering here into a new realm of legislation dealing with betting evils, nut only in respect of dog race-tracks but in respect of sweepstakes and lotteries. The responsibility which the Bill, for instance, places upon a bookmaker not to bet with any person under 18 years of age is a great one. A bookmaker may, easily be taken advantage of by the misrepresentations of youths under the age of 18. A fine of £50 on a bookmaker who has accepted a bet from a youth under 18, when the youth himself has made the bet wilfully, knowing that he is under age, seems too severe a penalty.
I suggest that in the first stages of the operation of this Bill, while its pro-
visions are becoming known to the public, it would be better to make the penalties cautionary rather than penal. Would it not be better in the case of illegal bets by juveniles to regard that offence as one which could be dealt with by probationary treatment? I do not suggest that the Government should do away with the larger penalties, although I think they could be put into different categories. I think the Government would get a greater response from the sporting public and those engaged in the organisation of sweepstakes and lotteries if they did not, in the first instance, inflict these maximum punishments. I am not satisfied with the hon. and learned Gentleman's recent suggestion that we ought to leave these matters to the courts. It would be much better that some lead should be given from the House, and I suggest that the acceptance of these Amendments would facilitate the progress of the Bill and its subsequent acceptance by the public.

9.9 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This Amendment has been moved and seconded with great moderation and temperateness, but there are one or two considerations which I should like to put before the Mover and Seconder. The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) referred to the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. In regard to all these different Bills, the House has made up its mind after study of them that there should be certain differences in the penalties imposed. In some Bills imprisonment can be imposed for a first offence. In this Bill imprisonment cannot be imposed for a first offence. Therefore, it is not right to take as an analogy a Bill in which for a first offence imprisonment can be imposed. Then I would earnestly ask hon. Members who have in their minds any idea that magistrates impose maximum penalties to dismiss that idea altogether.
The fixing of a maximum penalty is not in the slightest degree a pointer to a court as to the penalty to be imposed in a particular case. In fact the process is really the reverse. The court would say that the maximum penalty was only intended to apply to the most palpable and deliberate case that Parliament thought could possibly be committed
under the particular Measure in question. Taking the general experience of the courts of our country I think it will be found that there is a real desire on their part to be lenient to anything which has no real moral culpability attached to it. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment made two points. First he raised the question of the amount of the fines and he wanted the £100 fine reduced to £20. As I have pointed out earlier a court may under this Bill find itself dealing with corporations or individuals who have made substantial profits out of the offences charged against them.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Could not they be dealt with under indictment and not by summary jurisdiction?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Even in the case of a minor offence dealt with under summary jurisdiction, the people charged might have made money out of the offence. Of course, in a serious case the proceedings would be by indictment and in the less serious case the summary procedure would be followed, but that does not alter the fact that people committing offences under the Bill might not only be people who have made profits out of the offence itself but might be and very likely would be, people who in the carrying on of the business in respect of which the offence had been committed, were making large sums of money and to whom a fine of £20 would be negligible.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Surely, they would he dealt with by indictment?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: Not necessarily.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: For a serious offence?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: A man is not proceeded against by indictment simply because he is rich or because he has made a lot of money out of the business in respect of which the offence arises with which he is charged. A man is proceeded against by indictment if the culpability is great, but the profit made may not be the measure of the culpability. Considerable sums might have been made out of an offence which it would be quite improper to deal with by indictment. But there will, very likely, be cases of people making substantial sums out of a business in respect to which an offence has been committed. We have
considered the matter very carefully and we have felt it right to give power to inflict a substantial fine but not to send a man to prison for a first offence. We believe that that is the solution which Parliament ought to accept.
The hon. Member made a second and distinct point with regard to increasing the three months to four months. Some of what he said in his speech forms the basis of the reason why the Government could not accept that Amendment. The ordinary procedure is that in the case of offences dealt with summarily the maximum is three months' imprisonment. In the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill which I may refer to as an example it was made four months because the offence in that case might be one in which there would be very serious implications and in regard to which difficult questions might arise and so forth, and one which it would be desirable to have dealt with by indictment. But that is not the ordinary practice of this House and for this reason. If the three months were increased to four months everybody who was charged, however trivial the offence, however devoid it was of real seriousness or moral culpability, would have the right to claim to go to the assizes, thus involving the time of 12 jurymen and a judge of the High Court. Proceedings will not be taken summarily in the graver cases, but in other cases the justices are given the power to inflict a limited penalty, and the right is not conferred on a man to say that he wishes to be tried by a jury or by a judge, however trivial the charge against him and however inconceivable it may be that any substantial penalty, by way either of fine or imprisonment, will be imposed. For these reasons we have given very careful consideration to this matter, and we cannot accept the Amendment.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I agree that the penalties under the first part of the Clause are not too severe, because there may be companies making large sums of money, but my hon. Friend dealt with the second part of the Clause and pointed out that under Clause 15, if a bookmaker is found taking a bet from a person apparently under or known to be under the age of 18, it is an offence, and it seems to me to he rather a heavy penalty to put a fine of £50 as a maximum for
such an offence. It is true that the magistrates have power to lessen the fine, but it puts in their hands an extreme penalty which they can use if they so desire, and I think there ought to be some lowering of that penalty. I think it is excessive, and I would like the learned Solicitor-General to consider that point particularly. I do not know whether he could do anything to-night, but in another place he might get a less penalty inserted for such a crime.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I was under the impression that the hon. Member who has just sat down was a member of a bench. This is the usual course of creating an offence and putting in the hands of the court a maximum penalty. A simple case such as that mentioned by the hon. Member would be tried by the justices, and if it were only a matter of a bookmaker dealing with a young person, a very light penalty could be imposed. But if it were the case of a young person being dealt with by the agent of a large business or corporation, there is power to impose a heavier penalty. This procedure has worked with very good effect in the past, and I think my hon. Friend may have his apprehensions allayed.

Amendment negatived.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Provisions regulating the establishment and operation of totalisators on dog racecourses.)

9.20 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 31, line 24, at the end, to insert:
and at the end of the first six months after the setting up of a totalisator on any dog racecourse such a percentage only shall be deducted as shall be certified by the accountant to be appointed under the provisions of paragraph four of this Schedule as will produce a sum equal to the cost of operating the totalisator added to 5 per cent. on the capital cost of the erection and equipment of the totalisator and a percentage adequate to cover the cost of amortisation of the totalisator.
This Schedule deals with rules and regulations with regard to totalisators on dog tracks, and it has not been a subject, or even a branch of a subject, that has been debated this afternoon. Although I am aware that we have only an hour and 40 minutes in all before 11 o'clock and that there are no doubt Government and other Amendments
which must be debated, I must ask the House to bear with me for a few moments in putting the case for my Amendment, because it appears to me that here we come to the very basis of the Government's proposal to instal totalisators on dog racing tracks. The House knows very well that that was not the course recommended by the Commission. They were in favour of maintaining the position that the totalisator was not legal on a dog track, but the basis on which the Government have proceeded in deciding, as they have, to legalise the totalisator under certain conditions on dog racing tracks was put very clearly the other night by, I think, the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin), who said that the rake-off was intended to balance the expenses. What is more important is that Lord Londonderry, in moving the alteration from 3 per cent., which was the original percentage proposed to be allowed to be deducted from the sums taken, to 5 per cent., said in another place that the Government were prepared to put some figure in the Bill which would enable the totalisator to receive its working expenses and leave nothing over for the profit of the promoters. The Home Secretary, speaking on the Committee stage in this House only a few nights ago, put a rather less ambitious aim as the Government's intention, and said that the whole effort of the Government in drafting the Bill had been as far as possible to limit any undue profits on these concerns.
Therefore, I want to deal quite frankly with the situation as it stands. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that the Government did not now pledge themselves to leave no profit whatever, but I have to prove that neither intention can possibly be carried out by fixing any definite percentage applicable to the operations of the totalisator on all dog tracks, whether in large populous districts with immense numbers of people attending them or small ones in the provinces. There is no fixed percentage that you could possibly apply equally and fairly in both cases. If it would pay the expenses of a small concern, it would yield a huge profit to a big race track. It is obvious that the Government have found it very difficult to arrive at any fixed percentage, because when the Bill was introduced
in another place the percentage in it was 3 per cent., with a penny breakage, and that was altered to 5 per cent., with a threepenny breakage, and in the Bill, as now printed with the Government Amendments carried in Committee, it is 6 per cent., with a penny halfpenny breakage.

Capt. A. EVANS: I do not think there is any breaking power.

Sir B. PETO: I will finish the passage dealing with this subject. I am referring to the proviso on lines 25 to 35, which immediately follows the part of the Schedule where my Amendment comes in. The arrangement now proposed by the Government is that up to 1½d. should be kept. Any greater sum in pence not divisible by three must be handed over to the stakeholder. I admit that the hon. Member is right in a sense that there is no breakage. The only reason I mention it is to show the House that I am aware that the 5 per cent. is not being increased. Therefore, the Home Secretary has already inserted in the Bill what, taking into consideration the proviso as well as the actual increase from 5 to 6 per cent., will work out to be a diminution in the amount allowed for working the totalisator. I mention this because my Amendment deals only with the question of 6 per cent. It is not necessary for me to ask that an accountant should go into questions of breakage, because it will not be a source of profit to those operating the totalisator.
If there is an attempt made to refer at all to the operations of the totalisator on horse racecourses, which was the original intention of the 1928 Act, and to which this House was always assured they would be confined, and to compare the amounts taken, I would refer to what Lord Rosebery, one of the representatives of the Jockey Club on the Betting Control Board, has said in the House of Lords, namely, that on horse racecourses they had to provide elaborate machines at enormous cost to deal with a maximum of 40 starters in a race, whereas on dog tracks six dogs were the maximum. Lord Rosebery added that no horse racecourse except one had more than 16 days racing in the year, as compared with 104 and four double days allowed for dogs under this Bill. He assured the House of Lords that if they allowed the Betting Control Board 104 days racing with no more than six starters, they would look upon the
totalisator as a gold mine. I think that is good authority for my saying that the Government have never made any due allowance for the enormous difference between operating machines of this kind on 108 days a year and on horse racing courses, some of which have only five, some eight and some 10 days of racing. I am satisfied that the percentage fixed will only yield the costs on small provincial tracks, but in the towns will yield enormous profits.
That accounts for the divergent opinions between different dog racing associations. There is the National Greyhound Racing Club controlling all those large and profitable tracks; and there is an organisation called the British Greyhound Tracks Society, who have issued a special newspaper to explain their grievances—the grievances of the small race track. The latter say they cannot. make a living under this Bill, whereas those controlling the large race tracks are extremely complacent about the Bill as at present. If the Government really wish to prevent betting on the totalisator from being a source of great profit to track owners or to limit that profit, they ought to accept this Amendment. There are elaborate provisions in this Schedule for the appointment of a qualified accountant in paragraph 8, which states:
The operator shall, within seven days after the close of each month, submit to the accountant for examination by him a complete statement of accounts for that month, giving all such information as he may require… and, in particular, showing in respect of each race the sums received through the totalisator, the amount retained by the operator and the amounts paid to the persons winning bets.
If all that is to be done, why not make some use of these details which are to be collected month by month by qualified accountants? It is obvious that use should be made of this information, and that the public should have the benefit of it. By certifying month by month, or every six months, the actual cost of operating the machine can be given, the capital expense of erecting it, the fair sum of amortization on that expenditure, and so, according to the figures quoted under the provisions of this Schedule, a proper percentage for meeting expenses would be reached. In that way the Government's purpose would be carried out. In no other way can we prevent the totalisator being a huge source of profit. The Home Secretary may say that it
would produce a complicated and an undesirable state of affairs to have different percentages on different courses. I would say in answer to that possible objection that the public would obviously know, if it is certified, what is to be the amount deducted for a totalisator running on a particular racecourse, some requiring 10 per cent. and on another racecourse 5 per cent., and would naturally make for the course where they got the biggest return for their investment.
If the Government see some other reason why my Amendment does not carry out completely their intentions in regard to the setting up of what really are indistinguishable from great gaming houses to the profit of the persons running them, I beg them to fall back, at any rate, upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) or that in the name of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson). They should retain the power of fixing some other percentage if they find I am a true prophet and that this 6 per cent. is resulting in immense gain on certain big race tracks to the owners and operators of the totalisators. I do not think that would be as satisfactory a plan as the one I propose. I admit frankly that I do not like dog racing as it is carried on to-day and as it will be carried on under this Bill. I believe it is a new vice and not a sport at all, and that it will increase under the provisions of this Bill because they allow totalisators to be operated. Much as I dislike all that, I still more dislike something which seems to me to be unjust and unfair. The Bill is so based that it must result in loss in some cases to the small man running a little track, and big profits to the huge combines running large tracks where enormous crowds assemble for no purpose in the world except to use the totalisator.

9.38 p.m.

Sir A. BUTT: I beg to second the Amendment.
After the very full speech of the hon. Baronet in moving the Amendment, I feel, that there is little I need add. The Home Secretary has told us throughout the Debates on totalisators on greyhound tracks that he wants to give them justice so that they can at all events operate without loss, and that a rate should be fixed to secure that they did not make large and substantial
profits. It must be admitted that it is impossible with a large number of tracks of varying dimensions to fix a flat rate which will be fair and equitable to all concerned. There are very small tracks throughout the country where the takings are only a few pounds a night, while there are other tracks where the takings will amount to hundreds and in many cases to thousands of pounds per night. I agree that the expenses of installation vary widely. In many cases tracks in the country will not be able to have mechanical totalisators at all, but there is no doubt that if you fix 6 per cent. for the tracks of the larger organisations in London it will not only mean that they can run wihout making a loss, but that you are permanently subsidising the huge monopolies to make really extravaant profits. I do not believe that that was the intention of the Home Secretary; it was certainly not the intention of this House.
It must be almost impossible for the Home Secretary to decide now what is a fair percentage for any track. I imagine that he has not the information at his disposal; at all events such information as he may possess can hardly be called either unbiased or reliable. I therefore favour the Amendment. It will give the tracks six months during which they can take a rake-off of 6 per cent., and at the end of that time chartered accountants, who are provided for under the Bill, will be able to make full returns to the local authorities, and they will be able to strike a fair average of the receipts of the respective tracks over the period of six months. It should then be easy to ascertain what is a fair and reasonable percentage for each track to deduct from the totalisator in the future periods. I wonder whether Members have considered what 6 per cent. really means. I worked it out roughly to-day. If £100 is taken to a greyhound racing track, either by one individual or collectively by several individuals and that £100 is staked on the eight races, it does not matter who wins or who loses, at the end of the time the individual or the people collectively will have only £60 left. Hon. Members can realise from that instance what enormous profits will be made by these totalisators if a large amount of money is staked.
I would like to emphasise another point. If the fears of the hon. Baronet are realised and a large number of tracks in poor areas are not able to exist on this deduction, it will mean that their clientele will be driven to the tracks owned by the monopolists and that will go to swell their profits. I seriously urge the Home Secretary to give some consideration to this Amendment. I admit it is a difficult problem, but, after all, we are legislating for the first time to legalise gambling, and we are going to allow the profits of legalised gambling to go to private enterprise. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he does not propose that anybody shall reap undue profits. I am not concerned very much with that, but I am concerned with the House of Commons passing legislation which will penalise the small man and subsidise the big man. I hope, therefore, that even at this late hour the Home Secretary will give some consideration to the Amendment. If he cannot accept it in this form I ask him to undertake to bring in an Amendment as the result of experience when the Bill has been working.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I rise to support the Amendment and to remind the Home Secretary of what we were told, at the very beginning, was the object of this Measure. There is no doubt about the words used when the Bill was commended to the country. It was stated in another place that the main object underlying the Government's proposals was a strict limitation of the amount of profit to he derived from operating the totalisator on greyhound tracks. Therefore, it cannot be suggested that there is anything hostile in moving an Amendment to implement the statement made by the promoters of the Measure. Certain arguments were used in debate last week which roused the apprehensions of many of those supporting the Bill. It will run counter to the Government's proposal if a scheme is set up under which huge profits are made. I have no means of ascertaining whether that will be so hut if it be so, or if it he suspected by the public, when this Bill comes into operation, that big firms are making large sums of money out of this new, legalised form of gambling, the Government will encounter very serious criticism. I want to be fair to the smaller
tracks, and I do not want to see large sums of money put into the hands of big, monopolistic concerns. I am sure that was not the intention of the Government and there ought to be some means of making certain that the intention of the Government is fulfilled.
We should not part with the Bill unless we have within the Statute itself the means to correct what we are now doing in the light of the experience we shall gain. It would be a disaster if it were found that some remedy ought to be introduced, and that that could be done only by means of a new Act of Parliament. In setting up any constitution it is important to have within the limits of it the means for adapting it to any new circumstances which may arise. Here, whatever be done, it is most important that within the next six months or 12 months, when we have gained experience of the working of this new system, we should be able to take advantage of that experience. If there were agitation for a new Measure, and controversy arose in carrying it through the House, we know that in the crowded state of Government business the evil would remain unremedied; and in the meantime those who set up tracks to exploit the weaknesses of the people would be making vast sums from the contributions of the poor people who attend them. In commending the Bill to Parliament the Government stated what was their main purpose in unequivocal language, and we ask that even at this eleventh hour they should embody in the Bill an Amendment which will give the House the possibility of making use of the experience which we shall gain in the course of the next six or 12 months.

9.50 p.m.

Lieut. - Commander AGNEW: The Government can justly claim, in bringing forward this legislation, that they have attempted to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. In their remarks on betting on the course the Royal Commission said:
Experience shows that of the management of a track are allowed to have a financial interest in the betting there is grave danger that tracks will be promoted for the sake of betting revenue, and that the sport will become simply an adjunct to the betting. Such tracks are little better than casinos.
I feel that it was with that in mind that the Noble Lord who introduced this Bill in another place stated that he wished so to arrange the amount of rake off taken by the totalisator as to leave no actual profit to the promoters. Since then the amount of the rake off has been increased, and the Home Secretary certainly said on the Committee stage a few nights ago that he did not venture to express the opinion that "each and every track would get the same advantage." In those words, his own frank admission, is revealed the weakness of the Government's proposal regarding what money is to be taken out of the pool. The whole weakness of the Government's proposal lies not only in the inequality which previous speakers have shown will exist as between large tracks and small tracks, but also in the unlimited possibilities for profit which are opened out by the whole system of having a rake off instead of a fixed amount of profit. When there is a rake off we get this position: There may be a track where, in the normal course of events, only a few hundreds attend the meetings. Perhaps it is at a seaside town. When holiday times arrives, instead of a few hundreds there are several thousand people passing through the turnstiles, and on such occasions the whole purpose of the Home Secretary in this Bill will be absolutely defeated, because the rate of profit clear to the promoters will be increased in exactly the same ratio as the number of people attending on that evening is increased as compared with normal evenings. That is the whole flaw and the weakness, and in putting my name to the Amendment which the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has moved, I do so in the belief that if the Home Secretary will accept it he will provide not only justice as between the large track and the small track, but also a fixed and fair and reasonable profit for those who may see fit to set up totalisators on racecourses.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. PALING: I hope that the Home Secretary will take advantage of this Amendment to secure the powers which it is suggested should be taken. It may be said that the wording of the Amendment does not meet the case, but if that is the only objection it can easily be got over. I listened with great interest to
one or two speeches made from below the Gangway on this side during the Committee stage, and I really was alarmed at the rate of profit which it will be possible for the owners of big tracks to make, a profit such as the Government never intended they should have but which the arguments then put forward showed they probably would make. The Government are recognising this as a social evil and are legislating in order to cut it down. They have made the point, both here and in another place, that the amount of private gain to be got out of the facilities giving for betting is to be cut down to a low figure. They are doing this so efficiently in the case of the smaller tracks that probably a lot of them will be wiped out, and the fewer smaller tracks there are the better it will be for the bigger tracks. It has been proved conclusively that the big tracks running now and those which will be run under this Bill will, in a very short time, be making enormous profits, and if they do so that will be absolutely against the intentions of the Home Secretary and the Government.
There has been some discussion as to the difference betwen horse racing and dog racing sometimes to the advantage of the one and sometimes to the advantage of the other. I understand that the difference is that the number of days per year on a horse racing track is 16, and in regard to the largest of them fewer than that. Under this Bill, the number for dog tracks is 104. I understand that the percentage taken off the totalisator on horse race tracks is 10; under this Bill for dog tracks the percentage is six, but 6 per cent. for 104 days is more than 10 per cent. for 16 days of horse racing, and gives a tremendous advantage to the dog racing track. I have come to the conclusion that dog tracks are going to become a very big and profitable business, and if that is so I hope that the Home Secretary will pay attention to the arguments that have been directed at him from every quarter of the House, that he should take powers so that if huge profits are made he will be able to deal with them.

9.57 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I can assure the House and the hon. Gentlemen who have raised this question that we have viewed it from all points that we could and that
we have very reluctantly come to the conclusion that we cannot accept the Amendment. The drafting of the Amendment, which I am not criticising, shows how difficult it is to achieve the object which a great many hon. Members have in view. It proposes that after the first six months of the operation of the totalisator on a dog track only such deduction should be made.
as shall be certified by the accountant to he appointed under the provisions of paragraph four of this Schedule as will produce a sum equal to the cost of operating the totalisator added to five per cent, on the capital cost of the erection and equipment of the totalisator and a percentage adequate to cover the cost of amortisation of the totalisator.
That opens out a very big additional burden upon the accountant, who would have to make some calculation as to what the working charges of a concern ought to be. If you take the other point that this would be calculated on the operation of the first six months, as the House knows, the totalisator was in operation on some of these concerns, and it was then declared illegal. It now comes into operation again, but I cannot help thinking that it would not be very satisfactory to come to very definite ideas as to cost, etc., in the first six months of the working of the totalisator under new and fresh conditions. I am sure that every hon. Member will agree as to the great disadvantage of bringing the licensing authority, which is the local authority, into problems in which there might be disputes as to whether the finding of an accountant or any other officer was fair and reasonable. The House all along has tried to avoid throwing into the arena of controversy among the local authorities, who are the licensing authorities, any question in which there should be a possibility of improper pressure—to use a very frank word. The Government have adopted the fixed maximum percentage, which is, no doubt, open to criticism and question. Some people say that it is very little and others that it may be too much, and that the effect of dealing with it in this way would be to give advantage to this or that track against the others. We have had before us from time to time such evidence and such figures as we could get, but I cannot say that I can place definite reliance upon those figures.
With the best will in the world, and with the idea of trying to meet a proposal with which I have a good deal of sympathy and which hon. Members have put forward to this House with very great force, it would be impossible. I say that, not because it has occurred in the last few hours or the last few days; I have been looking at this matter with the greatest concern ever since the Government first tackled this problem. It is true that when the Bill was first introduced the figure was put at 3 per cent. We then felt that there was some reason for changing that figure and it was raised to 5 per cent. plus breakages. Then it was ascertained that the breakages provision would not act in such a manner as would not make it five plus one, and that is why the Government brought the figure to six.
Having said that, I come back to the practical working of this business. I have been anxious to make this responsibility one of Parliament and not of the local authority, but all I can say is that the House will be well advised to accept what is in the Bill at the present time. I will only add that if, not at the end of six months but after a period of trial and error, it becomes apparent that something has been done that has gone far outside what either the Government or this House desires, that will be the time when this should be reviewed. One cannot bind any Government, but it is obvious that there are still outstanding questions and problems which Parliament may have to review at some future time.

Sir B. PETO: Does that mean that the Home Secretary will take powers in this Bill to review this question?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir, I do not think that is possible.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: I have listened to the Home Secretary's speech and I realise that the purpose that he had in mind in drafting the Bill is exactly the purpose which the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), and various other hon. Members who have put down Amendments, have also tried to achieve. The Home Secretary has undertaken that if some time it is shown by experience that the Act is not going to be a satisfactory method, the Government will introduce legislation—[HON. MEMBERS:
"No."]—or will review the position and if it is then possible, will alter by legislation what is provided in this Bill. We all know that it would be extremely difficult to find Parliamentary time for that, and it would be a very cumbrous way of dealing with the matter. Our purpose in putting down this Amendment has been to enable the Government now to obtain some flexibility, so that it would be possible for them, after gaining experience of the working of the Measure, to alter the amount of the "rake-off" in order to do justice. There are two matters in which the Bill may not work as is anticipated. In the first place, it may result in all tracks making larger profits than are intended by the Government; and, in the second place, it may result in some individual tracks—for example those in city areas—making larger profits than the Government intended should be the case. We are trying to arrive at some flexible machinery by which it would be possible for the Home Secretary to make the operation of the Act fairer and more equitable without having to come back to the House in order to pass legislation. I realise that the Home Secretary is genuinely in sympathy with the purpose we are trying to achieve, and I only detain the House to say that I hope he will be able himself to devise some Amendment in order to achieve the desired result.

10.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: May I ask the Home Secretary a question? I contended in my remarks that, although the "rake-off" was limited to 6 per cent., the actual amount of the profit was in fact unlimited. He did not reply to that point, and I would like to ask him whether he could deal with it.

Amendment negatived.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 31, line 40, to leave out "within a specified time," and to insert:
before such time, not being earlier than forty-eight hours after the conclusion of the race or, as the case may be, of the last of the races in connection with which the bet was made, as may have been specified in the notice aforesaid.
This is an Amendment which was asked for by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams).

Amendment agreed to.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 32, line 23, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the terms on which any accountant is appointed as aforesaid shall include a term that on every appointed day either he or a servant of his authorised in that behalf by him in writing must be in attendance at the totalisator during such period or periods as may before that day have been notified to him in writing by the operator.
I understand that the Home Secretary is willing to accept this Amendment, and I desire to thank him very much for his gracious consideration.

Mr. LEVY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir J. GILMOUR: This Amendment is merely to provide that the licensing authority must make it a condition that the accountant or someone appointed by him shall be in attendance at the totalisator at such times as have been notified to him in writing by the operator. I am prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 33, line 8, to leave out from "with," to the end of the paragraph.
This is a deletion from paragraph 8 of the First Schedule, which was inserted during the Committee stage.

10.10 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: Owing to the noise, I did not hear exactly what the Home Secretary said, but I venture to suggest that this is a very important Amendment. He has announced that he will be guided in the future by the actual results of the running of these totalisators on the basis of a 6 per cent. "rake-off," and a qualified accountant is to be appointed to watch over the operation of the totalisator. This would enable the Home Secretary to have precisely the information that he will require in order to arrive at a decision as to what the profits really are. I could not hear what he said, but I cannot understand his motive in striking out of this paragraph the very words which would enable him to have before him the information he would require in order to know how the thing is working. I would ask him to look at this Amendment in the light of what he has just told the House, namely, that he is going to retain an open mind on this question of the working of the figure
of 6 per cent. If he is going to do that, and if he has any intention of revising the arrangement if it should be found necessary in the public interest, he will want all the information that he can have, and, in particular, the very thing that he is now striking out. Therefore, I would ask him to give some reason which can be connected with the decision which he has just announced to the House.

10.13 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is unnecessary to detail these various heads, because we have full powers to get all the information that we require, as the result of an Amendment which was put into the Bill at another point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 33, line 14, after "necessary," insert:
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the provisions of this Schedule are being complied with."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

10.14 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I am sure the whole House will be glad that we are able to begin the Debate on the Third Reading at any rate in an atmosphere of calm. In fact, all the debates on this Bill were carried out most quietly and calmly until we had a temporary interruption on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). The Second Reading and the Third Reading in the other House were both passed without a Division, and the Second Reading in this House was passed without a Division. Therefore, the Government were able to claim at the very beginning of the Committee stage that both Houses of Parliament had agreed with the principle upon which the Bill was based, and I think it is only right to say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, how very much the Government feel obliged for the loyalty of those who supported the Bill and for the silence which they have kept, under great provocation, both during the Committee stage and here on the Floor of the House. The fact that the Second and Third Readings in another place and the Second Reading here were unopposed was the real justification for bringing the Bill
down to the Floor of the House, and the fact that we were justified in doing it is to be found when we recollect that upstairs the first Clause consumed 20 hours of discussion, whereas the whole of the rest of the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, consisting of 33 Clauses and 22 Schedules, only consumed 27 hours. That shows that the general opinion of the House is in favour of having the Bill upon the Statute Book as soon as possible, and the weapons that were sharpened and forged upstairs in the heat of July became very blunt in November.
We had two main streams of opposition to contend with. We had on the greyhound question first of all the fear that under the Bill a great number of the little tracks might be squeezed out. We also had the fear, which has been again voiced this evening, that by the operation of the totalisator undue profits might accrue to the larger tracks. To the best of its ability the Government has dealt with both points in the compromise which it has offered to the House and which is now before it on the Third Reading. The second stream of opposition that we have had to deal with has been with regard to lotteries. There still are some Members of the House, and people outside, who speak as if they thought the promoters of large lotteries were ipso facto public benefactors. What has indeed been most noteworthy in our Debates is that no one who has dissented from the Royal Commission's remarks on the subject of large lotteries has ever made any attempt to give a convincing reply to the statements of the Royal Commission and the conclusions that they came to as the result of the evidence that they heard.
The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), who seems to be so vocal at the moment, said no one wants the Bill. It is certainly true that some of the popular newspapers recently have been supporting his attitude, but when the Royal Commission's Report first came out practically the whole of the Press of the country supported their recommendations. I may instance two of the papers which have lately taken a rather different view. On 9th June last year the "Daily Express" said that large lotteries had the effect of a poisonous drug and that the Commission had reached the right conclusion. The next day the "Evening Standard" urged the public acceptance of the Commission's proposal
for suppressing the sale of Irish Sweep tickets. Nothing that has happened since June of last year, so far as the Government can see, has in any way altered the basis on which the Royal Commission founded its recommedations, and while other people's opinions may have differed ours have remained the same. The hon Gentleman has quoted time and time again what happened at the Conservative conference at Bristol. I feel 10th to raise the question again except that I was one of the four or five Members of the House who were there. Of course, they were carried away, as the hon. Gentleman says and as we know, by the eloquence of himself and the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Braithwaite). The Conservative Conference found itself in exactly the same position as the Royal Commission. Every one who first looks at this question of big lotteries has the presumption that there must be something in it. The Royal Commission, a perfectly unbiased body, presided over by Mr. Justice Rowlatt, said:
At the outset of this inquiry we approached the subject of lotteries from the point of view that present circumstances seem to call for considerable relaxation of the existing prohibition of large scale lotteries in this country.
That is what they said. That is the position, no doubt, in which, as a result of the eloquence of my hon. Friend, the Conservative Conference and the other bodies found themselves, that they were not in a position to study the evidence or even to hear the opposition. If they had done so I have no doubt that they would have come to a similar conclusion on the case as the Royal Commission, who say that
after close consideration of the subject we have, however, reached the conclusion that a relaxation of the existing prohibition of large lotteries is undesirable and is not called for.
Everybody who looks at the question of lotteries is rather in favour of them. National lotteries have in the past had some rather strange results. Looking at the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) I am reminded that but for one she might not herself have been here, for in 1612 a public lottery was promoted in aid of the plantations of Virginia.
When the hon. Member for South Kensington tells us that in this Bill we are altering the law which existed 300
years ago by which the Government retain the power to authorise lotteries, he and others who think with him are wrong. We are not doing anything of the sort. We are declaring the existing law, and putting it into the forefront of the Bill to show that this part of the subject is under consideration and that it shall be maintained in the future. As in the past, it will always be open to Parliament, the sovereign body, to pass a Bill to have a lottery for any specific purpose. That has been the practice for many centuries and it is still the law. To try to put on the Government and the executive of the day the power to choose when, why and how national lotteries should take place was a proposition, an old one in our legislation, and one the present Government were not prepared to accept.
We have been told that no great public bodies have expressed any opinion against lotteries. We have heard about those various meetings which have said they wanted lotteries. We have been told by several speakers that no one has ever said anything to the contrary, except, of course, the interested bodies, such as, perhaps, the anti-gambling league, who naturally would not take a contrary view. If the House would look up, as I have done, the "Times" for 18th April, they would read the report of a great conference which welcomed the provisions of the Bill to strengthen the law against public lotteries. What was that conference? It was a gathering under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Malmesbury, a very distinguished ecclesiastic, and it spoke representatively on behalf of the Church of England, the National Free Church Council, t he National Sunday School Union, the Christian Social Councils, the Young Mens Christian Association and the Church Army. On 24th April similar support was reported on behalf of he Baptist Union, and the next day it was announced that the Committee of the National Council of Evangelical Free Churches welcomed the Bill as a courageous effort.
Hon. Members may be entitled to ray that that opinion is not worth anything, but when you have these bodies representing the social and religious workers of this country, the Government, at any rate, whatever hon. Members may say,
cannot ignore an expression of opinion from those quarters. That is the explanation of the great support which the Bill has received both in this House and outside in the country. It may not have been the support of the kind which comes out and says that it is a magnificent Bill, because you cannot expect Members or bodies of that kind to admit willingly that they would be prepared to yield on the question of betting or lotteries. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) has been frank with the House. Time and time again he has said that he and those for whom he speaks—and it is the same with other bodies—naturally do not welcome a Bill which gives something which they do not like to give away, but they say that it is something better than the present situation. They say that it is a great attempt to deal with a very grave social evil. We can say, and we do say, that there is a very great deal of support for this Measure.
The motive of the Bill—if I may now come to a final summing up—is the assumption that Parliamentary regulation of gambling is not a question of morals but of expediency. Morality is for the individual. But Parliament has to take note of certain circumstances as they arise. No individual, in our view, possesses a cast-iron right to enrich himself by inciting, influencing or exploiting the gambling habits of his neighbours. No one put the Government position better, if I may say so, considering his general attitude towards the Government, than the hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones). It is not often that I go for a description of Government policy to the hon. Member. He said:
I do not object to a man or a woman putting a shilling on a horse or engaging in any other form of speculation, but if we allow unlimited possibilities for the exploitation of the people we are committing an offence not merely against morals but against the machinery of government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1934; col. 704, Vol. 293.]
We base ourselves upon that statement. We are entitled to claim that the support for this Bill comes from all quarters of the House and from all political views.

Sir W. DAVISON: Why did you not take a free vote?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The first part of the Bill deals with betting. It restricts betting on the track to a
maximum of 104 days a year, not necessarily two days a week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tote betting!"] All betting. I want to make the explanation as clear as I can. It restricts betting on any track to a maximum of 104 days in the year, not necessarily two days in each week, by such days as may be selected by the licensing authorities, who are the county councils and the county borough councils, except in a case where all the tracks in an area agree to the same days. If they do that, then those are the days which must be selected. The authority in considering applications is not concerned with the question of the morality of betting. It has to take into account the health and comfort of near-by residents, the interests of schools and institutions, traffic considerations, amenities and questions of law and order. A licence when granted, unless revoked for misconduct or some other specific reason, lasts for seven years, except that in the case of an existing track they may claim a five years' moratorium. Betting days are restricted to eight races per day. Totalisator betting is not allowed anywhere except on horse racecourses or on dog tracks. On dog tracks it is supervised by an accountant and mechanician authorised lay the licensing authority. The amount that can be retained by the operator is limited to 6 per cent. The track occupier is not allowed to interest himself in any way in bookmaking and may only take 6 per cent. of the totalisator pools for expenses, etc. Tracks where betting takes place on only seven days a year or less are not within the purview of the licensing authorities at all.
The only other point in regard to betting is that on horse racecourses it is permissible—it is already the law and this is declaratory—for the Racecourse Betting Control Board to arrange for the investment in totalisator pools of money received on credit either on or off the course. It is impossible for what was known as the Tote Club to come into being again, because it is not lawful for anyone, as the phrase is in law, to resort to any place for the purpose of putting on credit bets, whether on the tote or otherwise.
Part II deals with lotteries. Let me sum up what the Bill does. It reaffirms the existing law that lotteries are unlawful and brings up to date the penalties
for infractions and the provisions for preventing their advertisement and the sale of their tickets. Having declared the general law that lotteries are unlawful, it then proceeds to make two specific exceptions. The first is that small lotteries like bazaar raffles, with prizes, which may be up to £10, are permitted, and, secondly, private lotteries are allowed, that is to say, they are confined, as far as the sale of tickets is concerned, to persons who either work or live on the same premises, or who are members of a society not established for the purpose; that is to say, clubs, institutions, organisations and the like. That means that while big lotteries are declared unlawful, what is legalised now are club sweeps, trade union Christmas draws 'and supporters clubs' lotteries, and the like. In that way a great deal of the inequality of recent administration is removed as well as the pettifogging restrictions which have been tiresome to a great number of people. This part of the Bill also restricts newspaper and other Press competitions unless they involve a substantial degree of skill, and at the same time it provides the machinery for dealing with it. That is the Bill in brief.
The machinery Clauses have been much criticised because we are asking the House to give us a search warrant Clause. The right hon. Member for Epping waxed eloquent on this subject last night, and told us that we should keep our search warrant for the safety of the State and not have it for matters so trivial as a draw in a lottery to exploit on a large scale the gambling propensities of certain of His Majesty's subjects. I took the trouble this morning, having been struck with the vigour of the right hon. Gentleman last night, to find out the recent Acts in which there is a search warrant provision. The right hon. Gentleman when he was addressing the Liberal party told them that it was against their principles, and against his own, and I was therefore amazed to find that in the Children's Act, 1908, when he was a member of the great Liberal party in the heyday of Liberalism, an Act passed when Mr. Gladstone was Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Darwin (Sir H. Samuel) occupied the position which I now occupy, there is a search warrant provision. Talk about the Englishman's home being his castle!
A justice of the peace can give a warrant to a constable to search if a child is being ill-treated or neglected—

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member has referred to me—

Captain CROOKSHANK: If a child is being neglected, a constable can go in and search the premises and remove the child. If this principle is so dangerous that you must not have a search warrant at all it is simply nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman is going to make a speech later on—

Viscountess ASTOR: I hope not.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The provision of a search warrant exists in over 50 Acts of Parliament, and it is necessary for the ordinary administration of the law in a great number of cases.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member has referred to me directly and endeavoured to deal with my past record. Surely he will have the courtesy to permit me to ask him whether he compares the action of maltreating a child with that of selling a lottery ticket?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I do not attempt to weigh the one offence against the other. The principle which arises is the same in both cases. In the Illegal Catching of Salmon Act the principle of a search warrant is admitted. Of course you must have the power in a certain number of cases. Parliament is very rightly jealous about giving the power to the Executive too often, and Governments are very chary in asking that it should be given; but in a case like this it has certainly been approved by the House. The Bill does not do half the things it is accused of doing. It does not raise the question whether one should bet or not bet. To describe it, as a Star Chamber Inquisition, another of the phrases of the right hon. Member for Epping, is absurd. We are not, as the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) said, supporting the principle of class distinction in snort. It is fantastic to speak of the Bill in that way. There again the right hon. Member for Epping used the words that it was class legislation of a most objec-
tionable character. I do not know whether he was here when we were discussing the Clause earlier in Committee. The Leader of the Opposition made a great speech on the subject, and supported wholeheartedly the attitude of the Government on that point. I have yet to hear of any case which the Leader of the Opposition would support if it could really be held that it was class distinction against the working classes of this country. Surely to any reasonable person that support entirely disposes of the right hon. Gentleman's claim that this is class legislation.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Leader of the Opposition supported you?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The Leader of the Opposition supported us on this particular proposal. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman was not here and was not aware of that fact.

Mr. CHURCHILL: On the contrary, I was here in my place.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Then the right hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of a desire to deprive the people of any possibility of being able to enjoy themselves. What misrepresentation is that! I cannot think that anyone who has any acquaintance with my right hon. Friend would consider him as a lugubrious spoilsport. What the Government are trying to do is perfectly simple. They are trying to set a limit to abuses to which public attention had recently specifically been called. We know that we are not stopping betting and gambling, and, what is more, we are not trying to do so. What we are doing is canalising these things in certain directions. We are trying to stop the big lottery and we are legalising many small ones. We are abolishing some of those tiresome regulations of which we have had many complaints. Surely, if a great flood comes down and for one reason or another you cannot dam the whole flood it is wise to take precautions and put up barriers where the flood would be most dangerous.
This Bill is in the true succession, I think, of social legislation. It makes no claim, nothing ever does in this country, to being logical, or to dealing with the whole problem. That is reserved for the
time when the suitable opportunity comes. But what we have tried to do, as other great social Bills have done in the past, is to tackle one or two of the major evils as they have emerged from time to time in the public eye. It is just because the Bill has nothing to do with party or political views that it is most suitable that a National Government should have undertaken it. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill now, as it has given the Bill in all its earlier stages, when matters of principle were before it, a unanimous Third Reading, and show that in spite of our excited and interesting evening last night the House has not lost its sense of proportion in matters of this kind.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary on having brought this Measure so far and to express in one or two final sentences what we here feel about its provisions. We, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, would have appreciated the Bill in its original form much more than the Bill as it will appear on the Statute Book in a few days time. The Under-Secretary in a modest and unprovocative speech has explained in detail the purpose, object and contents of the Bill and I am sure that his statement will remove many doubts and anxieties which were felt concerning it. The Bill certainly would seem to have reduced itself to something like a mixed grill and while I congratulate the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary upon their tenacity I am not sure that I can congratulate them fully upon the contents of the Bill. It is true that this Measure never set out to deal with every phase of gambling, but that, as the Under-Secretary said, was not the intention of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission said that legislation as to gambling must necessarily contain a considerable element of practical compromise and nobody can doubt that this Measure contains a practical element of compromise.
The Bill sets out first to limit greyhound racing and accomplishes that object to some extent; but while doing so it legalises for the first time the totalisator on greyhound tracks. It prohibits large lotteries, but permits foot-
ball pools. The Under-Secretary said that the Government were trying to canalise betting, but I am afraid that the canal will become a pool as time goes on. In any case as I say the large lottery is prohibited while the football pool is permitted. Off-the-course betting is now permitted, while newspaper competitions are prohibited. Small lotteries and private lotteries are permitted and credit betting is still regarded as the porcupine to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) referred the other evening. The Bill therefore does none of those things which many of its opponents prophesied that it would do. If its political value to the Opposition were what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping believes it to be, then Socialism would be in its rightful place within a short time but we shall hesitate before congratulating ourselves upon the success of the Measure politically as far as we are concerned.
The Bill proposed to deal with a well-known problem which had been examined meticulously by a Royal Commission. The Government have seen fit to carry out to some extent the Commission's recommendations. So far as they have gone, we congratulate them upon their tenacity and their efforts but we regret now as we have regretted throughout these proceedings that they were not sufficiently courageous to take one more step. While closing the door on the development and extension of greyhound racing, they should have seen that no other door was left open. They should have guarded against the possibility that there would simply be a transfer from one undesirable development to a similarly undesirable development in another direction, namely, football pools. The Bill is one of those compromise efforts which have been characteristic of attempts to deal with gambling all through the last century. I commend the right hon. Gentleman for having tried to do something. He has not succeeded in doing a lot but as far as he has gone I hope that the general result of the Measure will be useful, particularly from the social point of view and the point of view of the wellbeing of the juveniles who have been drawn into the net of gambling, and that it will prove effective as a deterrent.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I beg the indulgence of the House, and I shall only keep them for a few minutes, because I am conscious that I have spoken more than I should have done on this Bill. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I express my congratulations to the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State on their conduct of this Bill. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That, I understand, draws ironical cheers from some hon. Gentlemen opposite, but although the Bill is certainly not one for which I have ally enthusiasm, I think the Home Secretary throughout these discussions has shown great courage. He had a very difficult burden to carry, and his task has not been made easier by the many attacks that have been made upon him, especially by those who have generally been associated with him politically. We think the Home Secretary has carried this burden with honour to himself and with distinction to the House. As far as the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) is concerned, it is wonderful how well we conducted our Debates until he came in. A few days ago he had never heard of the Bill, but he suddenly became acquainted with it, and we had yesterday the type of leadership that we are going to have in the big constitutional Debates of the next six months. Really it was a try-out of his forces in this House, and that is what happened yesterday, when for hour after hour we were kept simply upon dialectical points upon a Bill upon which, apparently, he thought it easy to dilate, but upon which some of us feel deeply because we are in touch with circumstances outside, in touch with those outside who are right up against the effects of this evil.
I would commend the people of this country who are looking to the leadership that we are going to have in the next few months to the conduct of the Debate yesterday and the delay in our proceedings, the dialectical skill in holding up a Measure which, at any • rate, many of the people in this country regard as being a serious social reform. The right hon. Gentleman asked yesterday, What principle was there? That was his theme. Turning upon the Front Bench, he asked, "Where is the policy, where is the principle?" He made a dozen speeches in the last two days without a
single constructive proposal. We are left with the fact that there is such an evil and that the Government had to tackle it. No Government could avoid taking action consequent upon the Commission's recommendations, and although there is an evil acknowledged by all except partisans and those who have betting interests, the right hon. Gentleman had not a single constructive proposal to make, except one, and that was to set up three or four large State lotteries. His only record in relation to this problem is the Betting Duty, which he brought in in spite of all the recommendations of commissions on the subject, and two or three years later, with his usual intrepidity, he had to take the position suggested by Edmund Burke in the words:
If I cannot reform with equity, I will not reform at all.
That is his only experiment in this territory, and that was an experiment made in spite of the protests of those who were well able to advise and of a committee set up by his predecessor, now the Lord President of the Council, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1923, and a certain number of us were appointed in this House upon that Select Committee and advised against that proposal. The right hon. Gentleman set that advice on one side and acted on his own initiative and his own illimitable resources rather than upon the advice of those who were qualified to advise, and three or four years later he had to admit that he had simply led his forces up the hill and was now leading them down again. That was his contribution, so that when I congratulate the Home Secretary it is not necessary for him to make the ironic comment he did.

Mr. CHURCHILL: You did not like it.

Mr. FOOT: There is one other point.. Again and again by the right hon. Gentleman we have been accused of being repressors of liberty. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from Lord Halifax, the famous trimmer. Does he know another quotation from the same source?
If only those had liberty who were able to define it, there would be few free men in the world.
Abraham Lincoln said:
The world has never had a definition of liberty, and the American people are very much in need of one.
I have been waiting for a definition of liberty in this Debate. One hon. Member has defined liberty as: Whenever a man wanted to bet there should be facilities, and whenever he wanted to drink there should be facilities. One cannot bet or drink unless there is somebody to administer facilities, which he seemed to forget. I use that as an illustration, because it was given in this House. The question of liberty was dealt with in detail by the commission. The commissioners were not like myself, for I am accused of being a killjoy and busybody. These were people who themselves knew all about sport, who knew more about sport than most Members of this House, and who decided that the whole case was that they would not interfere with liberty. They said:
We take as our starting point the distinction referred to between private gambling, between individuals and facilities for organised gambling. In our view the State should not interfere with private gambling between individuals. What it should be concerned with is organised gambling, which is an interference with individual liberty.
The whole of the case of the Commissioners is directed against that kind of gambling. This is directed against those who prey on the frailty of their fellows, and who have made vast sums by putting within the reach of people not able to protect themselves these temptations to make themselves rich at the degradation of their homes. In the case of embezzlement the first question asked is whether the accused has been betting. There is not one Member who, if he had a man dealing with his financial affairs and knew that he was betting, would not keep a close scrutiny on that man. The first question in embezzlement on the big railways, is, "Has he been betting?" I have been in touch with this. I have seen youths, not necessarily of great advantage to the State, ruined by this, my sympathy being with them and against those who put facilities for betting in their way.
When we dealt with the question of lotteries the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) did not remind the House of the two votes on lotteries. He spoke of one in 1932. He carried that on the First Reading. I am sorry to see that he has fallen under the influence of his surroundings. I do not want to take advantage at this time of his being
indifferent to our discussions. I was only pointing out that while it is true that when he brought forward a proposal upon this matter in 1932 he carried the First Reading by 176 votes to 123, he has not reminded the House that there was another vote in the previous year—

Sir W. DAVISON: In the previous Parliament. It was in the Socialist Parliament.

Mr. FOOT: It was not a Socialist Parliament, but a Parliament in which my hon. Friends were in great numbers, in which we had numbers that were commensurate with our position in the country.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It was a Socialist Parliament.

Mr. FOOT: It was not; it was a Parliament in which there was a Socialist Government. I hope my hon. Friends will be more careful in their language. I want to point out what was done then. When this proposal was made by the hon. Member then, when there were Members in the House who were representative of the different elements in the country, it secured only 58 votes, and it was defeated with 181 votes in the Lobby.

Mr. CHURCHILL: By Liberals.

Mr. FOOT: Not merely by Liberals and Socialists, but by the more reasonable members of the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs. The hon. Member suggested, as he did the other night, that we ought to have sweepstakes to sweep away the slums, but we believe that the slums have been very largely maintained and created by the losses that have fallen upon the masses of our people consequent upon the extent of the gambling habit.

Mr. McGOVERN: Rubbish!

Mr. FOOT: My hon. Friend has forgotten some of his earlier ideals. It is suggested that some of these social advantages should be carried through by this policy, but I do not think that the slums of this country are going to be swept away by a policy that puts lotteries on our shoulders. I apologise to the House for having spoken so long. It is only the interruptions that have caused me to take longer than I should
have clone. I close, as I began, with commending the Government for insisting on carrying through the Bill. It is not the Bill we should have asked for or the Bill we would have drawn. Give us a Liberal Government and we will show you a good Bill, but as long as we have not the opportunity of translating our ideal into immediate legislative action, we have to look to the Bill that most nearly expresses our own purpose. The Government along these lines have acted courageously and in the public interest.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. JOEL: I support the rejection of this Bill. Now that we are drawing to the close of its long career I consider that the Government and the ardent supporters of this Bill, which we have noted are chiefly to be found on the Liberal and Opposition Benches, should seriously consider whether the time spent on it has been worth it. Were the many days that were spent on Standing Committee upstairs worth it, and were all the days, including a considerable amount of overtime, that have been spent on the Bill in the House worth it? I think that they were decidedly not because I believe that the Bill will not have any appreciable effect on diminishing the volume of betting which takes place throughout the country. That, I understand, is the main purpose of the Bill. The Bill may result, although we are told it is not one of its objects, in killing a, great number of greyhound tracks. If we passed a, short Measure banning dog racing altogether it would, in my opinion, have no appreciable effect on the volume of betting in the country; for this reason, that I do not believe there is a public that bets on dogs and does not bet on horses. Many people bet on horses who do not bet on dogs, but I do not believe the converse is true. If people cannot bet on the one they will bet more on the other. I often wonder whether many Members of this House fully realise the amount of betting that does take place. Certainly, judging from two of the speeches I heard last night, or, rather, early this morning, there are at least two Members who do not. I wonder how many Members have stood in a street bookmaker's office and watched the continuous stream of customers and runners coming in with bets, mostly small bets in pence, sixpences and shillings; and I
wonder how many Members have observed milkmen and other roundsmen collecting betting slips on their rounds. All those bets are made on horses and not on dogs.
Betting on horses takes place all over the country every day. I am sure that many men and women in Glasgow or in Crewe will bet on horses at Lingfield or Birmingham,, but I very much doubt whether any constituents of the Home Secretary or of the Solicitor-General would bet on a dog in Birmingham. I believe that practically all betting on dog racing is confined to the people who attend the tracks, a very small proportion of the sum total of betting, and therefore I do not believe we should appreciably decrease the volume of betting by killing dog racing altogether; and surely it is better that people who bet, and who will continue to bet after this Bill has become an Act, shall do so while spending their evenings in the open air, betting on dogs which they take an interest in, rather than betting on horses running in a race at the other end of the country which they never see. Besides, in the one case they are betting legally and in the other, unless they are rich enough to have credit facilities, they are betting illegally. Yet this Bill restricts the average number of dog racing days to two a week. It is, I believe, entirely useless and unnecessary and a terribly aggravating infringement of the rights of the private citizen to take his legal enjoyment—for it is legal two nights a week—when he chooses or when those who purvey it to him are willing to give it.
Again, although the Bill legalises totalisators on dog tracks it insists that they should be electrically operated. That is the real sting in Part I of the Bill. It means that the Government are giving something with one hand and taking it away with the other. The cost of the electrically-controlled totalisator makes it prohibitive on the smaller tracks. The Government say that they do this in the interests of the public getting a square deal. I suggest that that is nonsense. I have betted on totalisators in two countries outside England, in France and South Africa, and in both cases the totalisators are hand-operated or partially hand-operated, and are efficient, and the Government in most cases have an interest in seeing that the totalisators
are well conducted, because they take a considerable proportion of the "rake off".
The Home Secretary says he wishes to protect the public, but he does not wish to protect them to the extent of differentiating between efficiently run and dishonestly run tracks. He has refused to set up a control board such as was advocated on the Second Reading of the Bill, and has refused to make any conditions or to institute a minimum charge for admission. He only wishes to protect the public from dishonestly run totes to the extent that they shall not have any tote at all. I will not stress his attitude to the other forms of gambling, such as the football pool, in which any swindler can defraud the public as much as he likes without arousing the Home Secretary's compassion for the poor public that needs so much looking after if it is a question of dog racing or lotteries. No satisfactory explanation has been given as to why the Government thought fit to drop the Clause dealing with football pools. We believe the reason was that the Government were alarmed at the opposition that the Clause seemed to arouse. I only wish I could think they are saving a loss of votes by having dropped that Clause. I am sorry they have not had the extra courage to go the whole hog and deal with the form of gambling which is most open to fraud.
No one seems to have considered the extra amount of work that this legislation will put upon the police. In the last few weeks the Minister of Transport, the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary have brought in enough new rules and regulations to require very considerable expansion of the police forces. This House goes gaily on, passing penal legislation, and no one seems to worry about it except the chief constables, who know that they cannot enforce it. I regret that the members of another place did not take the opportunity of rejecting the Bill when it was first brought in. They would have had the wholehearted support of the man in the street and they would have entrenched themselves for at least a generation against the onslaughts of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I hope that those who do not wish to encourage the Government to pare away still further the rights of the citizen without doing anything
useful to reduce what so many consider the growing evil of gambling and without effectively protecting us from any evil, will oppose the Bill in the Division Lobby.

11.10 p.m.

Wing-Commander JAMES: The Under-Secretary, in moving the Third Reading, said that the Government were indebted to the back-bench Members on their side for not having spoken, either here or during the Committee stage. It seemed to me that that was rather a doubtful compliment. We back-benchers who support the Government were not sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) intervened, for, if he had not intervened, the greater part of the opposition would have rested with the vociferous representatives of vested interests. Nobody who was upstairs in the Committee would doubt that for one moment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping really made good use of his opportunities, but it was obvious that he had not studied the Bill very thoroughly. Yesterday he made one speech in which he accused the Home Secretary of lack of care in preparing his work, comparing him very unfavourably with the late Lord Balfour, who took immense trouble in getting his work perfect; but then he completely shifted his ground, and complained that the Home Secretary was indulging in Machiavellian plots against the people's liberties.
The fact of the matter is that most of the opposition to this Bill has come from those who simply wanted a stick with which to beat the Government, and, if anybody wants proof of that, they have only to look at the Division lists. When anything of this sort crops up, the same people appear in the Division lists who vote against the Government on India, on the Statute of Westminster, or on anything which gives them the opportunity of beating their own drum and beating the Government. Whether this Measure is a wise one cm tactical grounds is another matter, but that it is a wise Measure on its own merits I have not the least doubt, and I hope that the House will accord it a Third Reading by a large majority.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I am not one of the vociferous representatives of
vested interests, but, for all that, I am afraid I am an opponent of this Bill. It is with great regret that I find myself in that position, because I supported the Second Reading, for at that time I thought that the Bill could be hammered out into a good, workmanlike shape; but since it has been brought down to the Floor of the House, and the Whips have been turned on, it has been decided entirely on grounds of party loyalty, and not on its merits at all. That makes me think that, as it stands, it is not a Measure which the country wants. The remark of the Under-Secretary with which I was most in accord was when he said that in this Bill the Government were trying to canalise betting. I only wish they had seen fit to go a little further in that direction. By removing the ban on sweepstakes they might have taken a step towards diverting the gambling instinct into a comparatively harmless channel.
All of us know that the gambling instinct is there; its existence cannot be denied, and it cannot be suppressed: and our duty, surely, is to direct it where it will do the least harm. I believe that taking a ticket in a sweepstake, as long as the sweepstake is large enough, might go a long way towards satisfying the craze for a "flutter" on the part of the ordinary person. That is the reason why I voted for a national lottery and not because I am particularly enthusiastic about national lotteries as such. Following the Home Secretary's most valid argument, as I thought, that the Treasury were not in favour of a national lottery, I should have been perfectly content with a private lottery authorised by the Government for some worthy object, though as far as the object goes, I have always thought that what became of the profit was a matter of entirely secondary importance as long as they were not stolen. My concern has always been for the millions of people whose lives are brightened up a little by taking a ticket in a sweep.
I believe that a big sweep once or twice a year provides for the best money's worth that one can get in the way of gambling. You get a maximum of fun for a minimum of expense, a maximum of excitement and anticipation, looking forward to the best way of
making a dull, dreary day pass pleasantly. When a man buys a ticket or a share of a ticket in a sweepstake he is in fact buying hope, and hope is one of the most precious things in this wicked world. Further the degree of hope increases with the size of the sweepstake, in the same way that the degree of disappointment diminishes, because no reasonable man could be seriously upset if he failed to win a chance when he knew that the betting was a million to one against winning. Equally it is a surprise when one wins an enormous sum like £30,000. Surely everyone who has a share in a sweep is going to dream of what he will do with the money if he wins it, whether he will buy a house or go round the world or perhaps just get married. The only argument that I can see in favour of a small charity sweepstake is the claim of the charity for which it is run. Surely the claims of charity on a big scale must be as great or greater than charity on a small scale. But the point is not where the profits go. There has been far too much talk about where the proceeds go, what matters is whether people shall be allowed to have their fun. I do not see why a person should be driven to encourage others to break the law and sending his money to Ireland when he wants to buy a sweepstake ticket.
If there is one thing that is demoralising to the sense of discipline of people and sense of duty of the police it is making an offence of what all of us know in our hearts is really no crime at all. I can think of no better way to bring law-abiding citizens into contact with the law than by trying to repress sweepstakes on the lines of this Bill. The only efficient way to prevent money going over to Dublin is to run a sweepstake here instead. But I suppose it is too late to hope for that now. Because the Government got a majority on this matter last week I suppose they think the country is with them. I only hope it is. But because I am afraid that public opinion is against them on this question of sweepstakes I must vote against the Bill.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to state my views on the question before the House. The Under-Secretary made a very competent speech, perhaps the most
competent speech of all the debates in many ways. He pointed out what the Bill sought to do and what it did not attempt to do. He pointed out its effects, and in a very frank way claimed that it was not a logical Measure, and that in betting and gambling this country never was logical. To some extent he had taken away the ground of argument which might be used against him. However, I look upon the Bill with deep misgivings. When the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), in what I think was the finest speech he has ever made in this House, spoke on the Second Reading, there was one point in his speech which appealed to the House. He mentioned the Harringay track in London and the Carntyne track in Glasgow and said that they were establishing creches where they brought children of four, five and six years of age to play during the hours the greyhound racing was on. That was his argument in connection with the matter. The common folk, whatever they thought, did not like to see children taken to the greyhound racing track and reared among betting and gambling. He made great play of that fact. I think that the Bill will perpetuate that of which he complained.
I will briefly sketch the origin of the Measure. A Royal Commission was set up in 1923, and not merely the Conservative Government, but the Labour Government, to whom the report was made, refused to act. It was said that the gambling problem was not such as to call for legislation. That was what the Labour Government said in 1924. A certain legal decision was given in the courts to the effect that the totalisator was illegal on a greyhound track, and it was because of that that the present Bill was introduced, so that it might become part and parcel of the legislation. The power behind it was not the effects of gambling, or that gambling was an evil and was ruining the morale of the people, but the decision in the courts. I will be frank. I am one of the few here who holds a sort of dual personality. I have betted possibly as much as, or more than most hon. Members. I have never bought an Irish Sweep ticket or a sweepstake of any sort in my life, and I have no wish to buy one, as the odds are too big against you.
What was the noticeable thing when the totalisator came to the greyhound track? Le us be frank. It was that there was immediately a great increase in the attendance of women at the track. Totalisator betting was different from the bookmaker, and it made its appeal. I have attended dog races not as a Member of Parliament but as an ordinary member of the public. Everybody knows that women began to attend in large numbers when the totalisator was introduced. Now that the totalisator has gone the attendance of women and children every week is on the decrease. This Bill, backed by the anti-gamblers and by those who say that their fight is against gambling, is for the re-establishment of the totalisator, which will mean a greater attraction for the women than ever before. Leave greyhound racing alone. Leave it to the bookmaker and you will see the attendances going down and down. The bookmaker is no attraction for the women. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) says: "I am backing the totalisator," and everybody who knows greyhound betting knows that the women will flock back to the totalisator and leave their children in worse dangers than the danger of taking them to the dog tracks. They will leave them to dangers at home. We are re-establishing the totalisator, which will bring the women back to greyhound racing. This is done in the name of morality, and those who are opposed to it are said to be speaking for vested interests.
Who wants the Bill? Look at the combination. The hon. and gallant Member for Twickenham (Brigadier-General Critchley) wants the Bill. Let the Greyhound Racing Trust speak. The hon. and gallant Member has been gasping for the Bill in the last few days because greyhound racing in Britain run by his association cannot live without the totalisator.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: Nonsense.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It may live in London, but go to the provinces, to Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool and elsewhere, and you will find the attendances diminishing. Even in London attendances have been diminishing since the
totalisator went. In the name of holiness and morality the attendances are to be made to mount up by the re-establishment of the totalisator. Far from diminishing the evil it will increase it. The hon. Member for Bodmin said that we were not in touch with the people. I do not claim to be more in touch with them than he is, but I live among them. I almost live at the Employment Exchange. My wife and I move among the people day in and day out. We have been told that we must dam the flood of betting, and where there is a leak we must patch it up. Take care that in patching it you do not create a greater flood in some other place. Mankind is not very bad but not too good, and, if you stop a man from doing something, he has a wonderful inventive genius for inventing something else.
You must take care that you do not create a greater evil. The Noble Lady is constantly denouncing the liquor trade, but what is actually happening in Glasgow 7 The records show that when there is an increase in gambling the number of offences for illtreating women and children go down. A man who has a small limited sum to spend can either take to drink, to gambling or to a vice which is unmentionable. He chooses to have a gamble. He turns from one vice to another which is perhaps not so dangerous or demoralising. Those who know the dangers of gambling realise that the Bill does not stop it. Street betting is rife in my division. But is the man who carries on street betting looked down upon? Not a bit of it. I am waiting for some of them to be elected to the town council. He is not looked upon as being a bad person, but as a kind of hero who has jinked the police for a long time. And the oftener you can jink the police the greater the hero you become.
In the case of most other crimes the public resent the offence, they do not like it, but the difference in regard to betting crimes is that the person who commits a crime is applauded. If he gets a book of Irish Sweepstake tickets and starts to sell them he may get 60 days' imprisonment. The real punishment is not the time spent in prison but the moral stigma attaching to a crime. The men who went to prison during the War for refusing to
fight never felt the punishment of prison. The Ulstermen who went to gaol for certain offences never felt the punishment because no moral stigma attached to the crime. Before punishment can have any effect there must be moral stigma attaching to the offence. No moral stigma is connected with a betting offence, indeed the man who can evade the law the most will probably be the most popular man in the district. You are putting the police in an impossible position. What will happen will be, not that the policeman will be fined but that his own family and relatives will be fined, and that is mean and contemptible. Generally speaking, detectives and police are assisted by the public. They could never catch half the criminals they do catch if it were not for the assistance that the public give. But what about bettors? The public will not assist the police but will do everything to assist the so-called culprit. The position will be that the police will have a most disagreeable job to do.
The Bill provides a right of entry on almost any miserable pretext. It is not a Bill which touches or seeks to minimise the gambling problem. In my opinion the tote will extend gambling and will attract the women to the dog tracks. Those who know the tote know that it is the very poorest section that it exploits the most. Tote betting grows with people who can least afford it. The Bill establishes the principle of the totalisator. It is true that it seeks to minimise profits, but it establishes the most vicious form of social menace in betting, and those who support it must take the consequences of their action. If you were going to prevent people spending money on this evil for the sake of social good one might support the Bill. But that will not happen. The Bill will only make the crime a respectable crime, and will extend the evil.
For these reasons I shall have pleasure in voting against the Government. There are 101 greater evils that require attention. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) said that gambling caused slums, or contributed to slums. Gambling is on the increase, admittedly, but a curious thing is that I have never seen a greater demand for better housing than there is now. Gambling is on the increase; drink is on the decrease. Never
was the working man a finer father than he is now. That is the greatest test of a nation's progress. Despite gambling never were working women and men better mothers and fathers than now. This is needless legislation and will not cure the evil.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I support the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. Because of the undertaking entered into earlier, that these proceedings should be brought to a close at a certain hour, I shall be brief and I do not propose to recapitulate and marshal once again all the powerful arguments which can be advanced against Part II of the Bill. But I would like to make a reference to the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary that his supporters in the House were to be congratulated on having kept silence, under great provocation, in these Debates. This is, after all, the forum of the nation. Those who support Part II of the Bill have had many opportunities of speaking in favour of their views, but I am within the recollection of the House in saying that the overwhelming majority of the speeches made in support of the Bill have come from the Liberal benches. There is very little support among the Conservative party for a Measure of this kind. The real support for the Bill comes from those people who, like the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), cannot believe that the great mass of the working population are capable of enjoying liberty without allowing it to degenerate into licence. They are prepared to ask the humblest people in the land, without any expert knowledge on such matters, to give considered judgments on the Gold Standard or Indian constitutional reform, but when it comes to a question of this kind, on which the average person is peculiarly qualified to speak, they are content to put into practice Measures of this nature and strangle the freedom of liberty-loving people by legislation which we believe to be grandmotherly.
We, on this side, have very little objection to Part I. We believe that something had to be done, consequent upon legal decisions in regard to the matters with which it deals, though we would
have liked a betting control board, such as was suggested in the Committee upstairs. But we emphatically believe that Part II is a muddle of hypocrisy and humbug. We believe that the introduction of the right of search in connection with venial and trivial offences is an unwarrantable interference with the liberty of the private individual. At a time when, all over the world, liberties are endangered and constitutional institutions are crumbling, we enter a most emphatic protest against Part II of the Bill and express the hope that this will be the last legislation promulgated by this Government which will foster the view, held by some of my hon. Friends, that the working class and the great mass of the people are not capable of making up their own minds on how to use reasonable liberty in a proper way.

11.43 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: The hon. Member who has just spoken talked about "grandmotherly legislation." Unfortunately, your grandmothers did not legislate—they had not the vote—otherwise, the country to-day would be even better than it is. I am not complaining of the state of the country to-day, but when people talk in that strain about "grandmotherly legislation" I must complain about their mentality. I have sat through most of the proceedings on this Bill. The Home Secretary commended us for our silence. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Well I am very pleased that certain interruptions had a good effect. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) would have talked all night and until ten o'clock in the morning if he had not been interrupted. But I wish to offer my congratulations to the Home Secretary upon the stand which he has taken. It has been a very difficult fight all through. When the Government takes the side of the angels, it naturally comes up against the reverse, and in this case it has met with opposition from the quality of mind which opposes all social measures. Real social and moral reforms always come up against the same mentality, and it has been interesting to me during the many years I have been in this House to watch the working of that kind of conscience. There are people who on these occasions always talk about the liberty of the working man, and the freedom of conscience of the people and
about a beneficent Government taking decisions out of their hands and passing legislation over their heads.
If hon. Members read the Debates of the past they will find that every single social reform since time immemorial has met with exactly that same kind of argument. The right hon. Member for Epping need not look at me. I am one of the few people who are neither impressed by nor afraid of the right hon. Gentleman. Sometimes I am depressed, but never impressed, and certainly I am never afraid. The vested interests have been working up such opposition to the Bill throughout the country that they have got even Members of the House of Commons to speak for them, but I can assure those hon. Members that if they go to their constituencies and listen to the people interested in the real social and moral side of things, they will find that they are all backing the Government in this matter and only wish they could have gone even farther. The Government would have gone farther if it had not been for the very people who are here taunting them with not having gone farther. Anything more hypocritical than to say, "Why did you not include football pools?" as though they wanted the Government to include them, and as though they cared twopence about it, I cannot conceive. I have never heard a more humbug opposition. I used to think the drink trade had its representatives in the House, but that is nothing to the betting and gambling trade. I am not, of course, saying all the Members, but I have never seen vested interests more represented in the House than I have over this Betting Bill. Not that the right hon. Member for Epping cares twopence about vested interests. He only saw a chance to make speeches and lead an attack against the Government, and a pretty feeble attack it was. I should have thought, after all his experience of public life in the House of Commons, he would have known that even his oratory could not carry this sham fight off. The Government have been taunted with being supported by Liberals, Socialists and cranks. The right hon. Member for Epping is a pretty one to be talking about Liberals. The first time that I remember hearing about the right hon. Gentleman was when he was a Liberal, and I heard him
described in my division by the late Leo Maxse as "half an alien and wholly undesirable." To-night I heard a happy reference to my native State of Virginia, but that was in 1612. My family had not left England then. They did not go till 1673, and they are purely British. That is why I know—

Mr. FLEMING: On a point of Order. What has this to do with the Bill?

Viscountess ASTOR: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the Noble Lady had better come to the Bill.

Viscountess ASTOR: The hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Fleming) is constantly interrupting. I for one am not ashamed of my American ancestry, because it is English in origin. That is why I have never felt an alien in England, for I understand the social, moral and spiritual point of view here. I know when the Government are fighting on this question that it is fighting for the soul of England.

Sir W. DAVISON: Humbug.

Viscountess ASTOR: We are taunted with being Socialists, Liberals, hypocrites and humbugs. I am glad, for social progress has always been started by cranks, by social reformers really interested in the moral state of the people. We had a commission which said what it considered was best for the country. The Government, when it got the commission's report, was bound to act upon it. I do not say it is a perfect Bill. Many of us think we could have produced a better one. The right hon. Member for Epping is a man of parts and of many pasts. I have never known him right. I remember when the Betting Bill was brought in he attacked me in the House and in the Lobby. I remember him perfectly well telling me that I belonged to the Conservative party, and, if I did not like it, why did I not leave it? I then told him I was not so used to leaving my party as he was. It is quite true that the Tory party gets some people with no vision, and with, I think, a very curious outlook as far as the country is concerned. The Tory party has never been made by them, never run by them. I remember a young man saying to me, "How can we follow these
diehards?" I said, "Don't you see the difference; we keep our diehards on the back benches, whereas most of the diehards of the other party get on to the Front Bench."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I really think that in the short time left we should devote ourselves to the subject under consideration.

Viscountess ASTOR: It is quite right that a National Government should bring in a Bill that has the support of Socialists, Liberals and progressive Tories. It would have been wrong to bring in a Bill that only had the support of vested interests and the reactionary section of our own party. I am perfectly certain that in future this Bill will be a bright spot in the Government's record. I think the country expects this kind of Measure from them, and does not expect them to listen to those on the back benches or to be frightened by the right hon. Member for Epping, who, though brilliant, never leads us anywhere.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I have not taken part in to-day's discussion, simply because I did not want to protract the business. We are now drawing to the conclusion of this Bill, and I wish to congratulate the Minister on his tenacity of purpose and on being Adamant and refusing to change his mind. I also want to compliment the Under-Secretary on the able manner in which he has expressed his opinions and given expositions of the real meaning of the Bill. But my criticism of them as exponents of a Government which is National remains. My remarks have never been personal, but have been applied to the Bill only. We are told that, although the Measure is inconsistent and illogical, we have to accept it. We are also told that it should be made operative because a Royal Commission expressed certain opinions, which by the way the Government are not carrying out in the Bill. The Debates have shown a remarkable psychology in the House. Members of all parties have patted themselves on the back on the fact that at last the menace of a social evil was being dealt with. But what is this social evil? A bit of rag fastened on to a piece of tin running round a track The Government deal with dog-racing and then it is claimed that a social evil has been
dealt with. Yet in our streets there are thousands of bookmakers making books and betting ad libitum. Then there is betting on the racecourses and the football pools which are taking hundreds of thousands of pounds. This Measure is indicative of the illogicality, the nonsense and the nudity of the National Government, and Members will be dragooned into accepting it by a big majority.
The Home Secretary has been complimented on his courage in dealing with a social evil. Where is the courage in dealing with a little bit of rag on a piece of tin? He has not dealt with the real social evils of betting. An hon. Member said children were left at the gates of the dog tracks. We have in Liverpool the Grand National and on that day the whole city is held up. Close upon a million people travel through the city to the Grand National. That event has never been denounced in this House as a social evil. But a few dog tracks, with 300 or 400 people attending them, are a social evil, to be denounced by those associated with horse racing, by racehorse owners, in this House. They say nothing against horse racing, which is ruining hundreds and thousands of our people. One of the Liberal Members, the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), told us that when a case of embezzlement comes before a court the question asked is, "Have you been betting on the dogs?" I have not heard that question asked and I have been to court very often, but what many Members must have heard is the question "Do you get a proper week's wage paid you?" How many people find their way into the dock at the police court because they are badly paid?
We have heard of the child with a mother at the dog track; but there are also mothers who regret to see their children attending racecourses. What is the use of moralising? We are living in an age of reason, when people have a right to those pleasures which do no injury to their fellow men. The anti-gamblers and the teetotal fanatics will never be able to remedy this state of affairs. The Bill has been brought in simply to suit the fanatics of the House. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) has spoken of the courage of the Home Secretary and thanked him for it. I want to put that courage to the test. This
Measure was first sent to a Committee of the House upstairs and afterwards brought down to be dealt with in Committee on the Floor of the House. It was taken out of the hands of the Committee, who were told they were not a fit and proper body to deal with it. But when the Bill was brought back to the House we were denied the right to deal with that portion of it which had already been considered by the Committee. Discredited though they were, they were supposed to be authoritative enough to deal with that part. I am going to ask the Home Secretary a question which will put his courage to the test. His Government has the biggest majority that any Government has had. Will he agree to the House having a free vote on this Bill? Why should we not have an honest test of the opinion of the House? I am consistent; I have been against the Bill in the past and am against it now, and I am prepared to go into the Lobby against it, but I want a free vote of the House.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. BAILEY: I shall be very brief, as the hour is so late, and though opposing the Bill, I want to do nothing to interfere with the arrangements between the Home Secretary and his new political allies in regard to their trains. Most of us rather resent—I do not want to use too strong a word—some of the suggestions that have been made. It has been suggested that we are the same people who are always out to oppose the Government, but on 90 per cent. of questions that come before this House we have voted in their favour. Take that unpopular Measure, the Unemployment Act; we thought it was right to vote for it. I resent such attempts to capture support for a Measure which is not sound. In regard to the constant attacks upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), I think that when the right hon. Gentleman's voice is silent and when history comes to be written, the tribute paid to him as the man who was responsible for our Navy being in a position to defend our shores when the War came will be higher than any tribute which he receives from some unthinking Members of this House. There are other men—or at least one other man—sitting in another portion of
this House whose record is not so honourable. I wish to say no more than that. We do not wish to found the Debate on the India question, or on any other question, upon personal issues, but, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping is to be attacked, we shall in return attack others whose record in regard to patriotism is far more vulnerable.
On the question of preventing gambling, I should be the first to support the Government if I thought that that would be the likely result of the Bill. We know that that will not be the result. The Government are afraid to control the vices of the people so they are seeking to prohibit their pleasures. If the Government had tried to stop street betting I would have been among the first to support them; I will support any Government who try to do that. It is wrong for a Government called National to allow corruption of the police to go on wholesale in our streets and bogus prosecutions to take place, and not to lift a finger to stop it, and then to come along with dummy Measures and pretend that they satisfy the consciences of the House of Commons and of the people. Those who continue to buy tickets in sweepstakes will be far more national than the Government. I do not want to abuse the Government; Heaven knows their position is sufficiently vulnerable without any of us trying to make it worse. Big evils have not been attacked. It is useless to talk about vested interests. We asked for a reasonable Amendment in regard to hospital lotteries. Are hospitals, vested interests? If they are, they are interests for which many of us would be proud to collect.
What the country wants from this Government is not a series of Measures which are acceptable to the Liberals and the Opposition, or are marking time; not a series of betrayals of our great Imperial trust, but a series of constructive Measures dealing with the dark spots of unemployment. We do not want these twopenny-halfpenny Bills but something that is worthy of a National Government. This Bill is based on hypocrisy and on the type of speech which the Under-Secretary would have scorned to make when in opposition. This sort of thing is not the fruits that we should expect from a National Government. For that reason, while we shall always support the Gov-
ernment so long as they remain National, we shall always oppose them when they go off the rails. We shall regard it as a sign that they have gone off the rails when they receive the commendation of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot).

12.10 a.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

Mr. McGOVERN: I do not understand the reason for such rushing tactics at this hour, when we were kept up till five or six o'clock this morning. I only rise because of one or two observations of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). He has suggested that, in opposing certain Clauses of the Bill, I have deserted ideals that he believed I possessed; but, after applying my powers of reasoning to title Bill, I can see neither ideals nor morality nor common justice in any of its Clauses. It is certainly not the duty of the Liberal party to lecture us in this House as to what we should do in connection with the Bill. I have never seen in this House a party that has wobbled about so much as that party. They began by being elected to the House with the support of the Conservative party in the country; then they pursued the policy of agreeing to differ; now they are agreeing to agree with the National Government, and are going into the Lobby to support it. In connection with the hon. Member's statement that I have deserted my ideals—

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I never used the word "deserted." What I said was that the hon. Member's action was not up to the level of his own ideals.

Mr. McGOVERN: If the hon. Member had followed the speeches, even of some of the supporters of the Bill, he would have heard the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and others point out that the Bill fails to deal with pool betting, which gives greater latitude to people to defraud the general public than is given by any other form of betting in this country. The Bill is a half-baked Measure. If the Government had intended to deal thoroughly with the question of betting, they would, instead of coming to the House with this badly considered Measure, have given to a Committee of the House the right to
arrive at some general agreement on the method of dealing with the question. Instead of that they brought before she House a Bill with regard to which the Under-Secretary, when he was closely questioned last night and the Government were evidently in retreat, had to say that it would be for the Courts to decide what was the meaning of a certain Clause. Fancy representative Members of a Government coming before the House and saying that a Clause cannot be explained by the very people who are piloting it through the House, but that it will be for the Courts to decide what it really means.
This afternoon we have had the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that, instead of dealing with the Irish Sweepstake, he has given great scope for every individual to carry on that sweepstake in the most efficient manner possible. Great charges have been made against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) because he kept the House up last night, and the allegation has been made that he has had a mind of a changing character. It is not necessary for me to defend the actions of the right hon. Gentleman, but at any rate I would prefer a mind that can change rather than one that can never change. We have in this House too many minds that can never change, that are docile and trained by Government Whips to operate in an efficient, machine-like manner when Members are commanded to go into the Lobby.
The Government can have their Bill. They have had comparatively little trouble in the House with it. When it goes through, the difficulties will begin for them and for the authorities. In regard to street betting, I have only 30 years acquaintance with the area that I represent. I know the people and I know the working-class attitude. I have seen betting going on in every street and every tenement in the East end of Glasgow. I have seen the dodging of special policemen, in and out, chasing the bookmakers, and the general mass of the people assisting the bookmakers, bringing them into their houses in order to escape the authorities. I have seen policemen time and again warning the bookmakers that special men were put on to catch them. I have known police-
men placing bets with bookmakers whom they were supposed to be chasing. This sort of thing is developing. It will be extended under the Bill.
The Government have done nothing seriously to grapple with the so-called gambling evil. They have done nothing to place it on a proper basis. They have done nothing to eliminate the worst forms of fraud in the betting world. They have sought to deal in a restrictive manner with certain lines of betting. They brought in a Bill to legalise the totalisator and packed it with inconsistencies. Members expected to make it a better Bill in Committee but it has never been improved. The Government has shown no disposition to meet the overwhelming opinion of hon. Members and of the people. They seem to be entirely blind to the wishes and mind of the general population. Let them go on. They are going along a road which will end in disaster for them. They will know in due course the amount of opposition to the Bill in the country. The Home Secretary has used the Whips to

Division No. 412.]
AYES.
[12.20 a.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Daggar, George
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Albery, Irving James
Dalkeith, Earl of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P


Allen, Sir Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hepworth, Joseph


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Holdsworth, Herbert


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Denville, Alfred
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Banfield, John William
Dabble, William
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Barclay-Harvey. C. M.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hornby, Frank


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Duggan, Hubert John
Horsbrugh, Florence


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N)
Howard, Tom Forrest


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Dunglass, Lord
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Blindell, James
Edwards, Charles
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Borodale, Viscount
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Bossom, A. C.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Boulton, W. W.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Jamleson, Douglas


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Elmley, Viscount
John, William


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Ker, J. Campbell


Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Buchan, John
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Leckie, J. A.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Campbell. Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Leonard, William


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Carver, Major William H.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lister, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Loftus, Pierce C.


Chapman. Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Goldie, Noel B.
McKie, John Hamilton


Clarke, Frank
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Graves, Marjorie
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Greene, William P. C.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Colman, N. C. D.
Grimston, R. V.
Magnay, Thomas


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Cook, Thomas A.
Guest, Capt. At. Hon. F. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cooper, A. Duff
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Martin, Thomas B.


Copeland, Ida
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Milner, Major James


Cross, R. H.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Crossley, A. C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

drive Members into the Lobby against their will. In spite of the most pressing messages to every section of the House to be here, 466 Members refused to come. The country will not fail to recognise that the Government have only been able to press the Bill through with the smallest majority and they know that Members are going into the Lobby believing that they ought not to. I have heard hon. Members say it is a rotten Measure and they hate it, but they want to be loyal to the Government. The Government can have that machine-forced loyalty but in my belief it can only lead to disaster.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Captain MARGESSON: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 38.

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Rea, Walter Russell
Stones, James


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Strauss, Edward A.


Nunn, William
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Stuart Lord C. Crichton-


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Ormiston, Thomas
Rickards, George William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Roberts, Med (Wrexham)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Owen, Major Goronwy
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Palmer, Francis Noel
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Train, John


Patrick, Colin M.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Peake, Osbert
Runge, Norah Cecil
Turton, Robert Hugh


Peat, Charles U.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Penny, Sir George
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'1)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Percy, Lord Eustace
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Petherick, M.
Salt, Edward W.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
White, Henry Graham


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Pybus, Sir John
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Radford, E. A.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne,C.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Somervell, Sir Donald
Womersley, Sir Walter


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Soper, Richard
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.



Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rathbone, Eleanor
Spens, William Patrick
Sir Victor Warrender and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Ray, Sir William
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
North, Edward T.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pike, Cecil F.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Remer, John R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Templeton, William P.


Bracken, Brendan
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Wayland, Sir William A.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Levy, Thomas
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Buchanan, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Wise, Alfred R.


Butt, Sir Alfred
McGovern, John



Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Marsden, Commander Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Davison, Sir William Henry
Maxton, James
Mr. Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Hunter.


Fleming, Edward Lascelies
Moss, Captain H. J.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-eight Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.